Search Results

"School is a pious institute. The children trust their teachers and consider them as guiding light for the life," the Court said.

"A child may not know the consequences of sexual relation," the Court pointed out.

Justice Nivedita P Mehta made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man under the POCSO Act.

Yediyurappa has challenged Karnataka High Court's refusal to quash the case.

In 2021, Praveen Shankar Kapoor was booked under Section 23 of POCSO for sharing the FIR copy on social media.

The Court stated that subsequent deepening of relationship between the couple cannot retrospectively legalise an offence under the POCSO Act.

Judge S Sujatha of Additional City Civil and Sessions issued summons to BS Yeddyurappa, YM Aruna, M Rudresh and G Mariswamy in relation to the POCSO proceedings.

The Court, however, said that Yediyurappa’s personal appearance should not be insisted upon during the course of the trial, unless necessary.

The Court observed that upholding the conviction would disrupt the family’s peace and cause irreparable harm to the wife and child.

The alleged victim (accused man's wife) pleaded for the man's release and told the Court that she has been reduced to a hapless state due to the conviction and sentencing of her husband.

The High Court had criticised the trial judge for ignoring an ossification report and ordered an inquiry into all cases decided by the judge in the past five years.

It is most unfortunate that the social media platforms are a remit for the immature, the unreasonable and oral incontinence and is turning into a nasty circus, the Court remarked this week.

She was expected to know the law inside out and not act “absolutely irrationally” or run after publicity by giving bites to the media, the Court said.

The Court added that the ingredients of Section 4 POCSO on penetrative sexual assault apply equally to men and women as the provision is clearly inclusive.

The Court rejected the man's argument that he was falsely implicated because he had disapproved of his daughters’ romantic alliances.

The Court refused to accept that the FIR was a result of some misunderstanding. Such kind of compromises are unenforceable in law being illegal and also contrary to public policy, it said.