#POCSO Act

The High Court upheld the Section 6 POCSO conviction for kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor but held the 30-year simple imprisonment sentence statutorily impermissible and disproportionate. It reduced the sentence to 15 years rigorous imprisonment, factoring in the appellant's youth at the time of offence, clean record, and over 11 years already incarcerated.

The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted a POCSO accused after the prosecution failed to establish the victim's minority through statutory records or an ossification test, reiterating that school registers and similar documents are primary proof of age. The court further clarified that while DNA evidence may confirm sexual intercourse, it cannot substitute for proof of lack of consent to establish rape.

Gujarat HC upholds acquittal: birth certificate without source verification cannot prove minority, making POCSO presumption inapplicable. Victim's conduct - no outcry, voluntary travel, non-disclosure - negated kidnapping and rape under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC. Proven age is a jurisdictional prerequisite for POCSO; voluntary accompaniment by a minor defeats kidnapping charges.

Meghalaya HC quashed POCSO proceedings after verifying the survivor’s informed consent and her welfare benefits, holding that consensual cohabitation with a child does not bar quashing if safeguards are met.

Providing accommodation or transport in a POCSO case attracts abetment under Section 17, HP HC held, refusing to suspend sentence absent strong acquittal chance noting that support in child sexual abuse cases is punishable as abetment limits bail relief.

The Supreme Court quashed a false POCSO FIR in a matrimonial custody dispute and held that arrest requires expert psychological evaluation prior to curb misuse, shielding children and parents from exploitation while upholding Act’s child-welfare aim.

Judges in Assam Nagaland Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh will treat medical treatment related FIR delays as non fatal in POCSO trials and defence teams must be prepared to rebut the Section 29 presumption to secure acquittal.

HP HC held that under BNSS §432, prosecution may submit a matriculation certificate as additional evidence to prove a victim's age in a POCSO case at the appellate stage if it supports the case. This clarifies age-proof evidence rules in POCSO trials.

The Gauhati High Court held that an unexamined school admission register cannot establish a victim’s minority and that ossification test results must be interpreted with a two-year margin in favour of the accused. Consequently, the accused was acquitted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, clarifying the evidentiary burden for age proof in POCSO prosecutions.

The Supreme Court set aside the POCSO conviction for lack of proof of the victim's minority via JJ Act documents or ossification test. It upheld the accused's IPC 376 rape conviction, confirming the offence was proved despite the POCSO charge failing.

The Meghalaya High Court quashed a POCSO FIR against a husband after the adolescent couple married and had a child, applying the Wahlang framework to verify the survivor's informed consent and recognize matrilineal customs. The court mandated scheme benefits for the victim and child within eight weeks and ordered judicial monitoring to ensure compliance.

The Supreme Court held dock identification is substantive evidence while TIP is merely corroborative, acquitting a POCSO accused due to contradictory medical timelines and investigation lapses. The decision underscores that convictions cannot rely solely on TIP without reliable dock identification backed by consistent medical proof.

The Gauhati High Court permitted a medical termination at 27 weeks for a minor sexual assault survivor, holding that the child's best-interest supersedes the 24-week ceiling in the MTP Act. This sets a precedent that statutory gestational limits can be set aside when a minor's health and rights are at stake, affecting future POCSO and MTP cases involving minors.

The Delhi High Court set aside a life-sentence for sexual assault, ruling that a child victim’s inconsistent testimony cannot alone satisfy the evidentiary burden under the IPC and POCSO Act without supporting forensic evidence. The decision underscores that corroboration is mandatory for convictions based solely on child witness statements.

The Meghalaya High Court ruled that a POCSO FIR may be quashed where the parties are in a consensual marriage and the alleged victim has given informed consent, invoking Section 528 CrPC’s discretionary power. The decision narrows POCSO’s reach in adolescent marriages and guides prosecutors on when FIRs can be dismissed.