Topic
Sexual offences in Indian law encompass crimes like sexual assault, deceitful intercourse, and child sexual abuse under the BNS, IPC, and POCSO Act. This page provides latest judgments, case analyses, and updates from Indian courts on bail eligibility, victim testimony, consent defenses.
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 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 Supreme Court overturned the ten-year rigourous imprisonment, restoring the trial court’s acquittal because the medical and forensic reports failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. This underscores that rape prosecutions must be backed by conclusive forensic proof, affecting all pending Section 376 IPC cases.
Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) granted bail to a married accused in a POCSO case despite the victim being a 17-year-old minor, holding she had attained the age of discretion and her conduct indicated consensual involvement. The court emphasized the 15-hour FIR delay, lack of forceful evidence, and the victim's contradictory statements as critical factors in bail jurisprudence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court mandates trial courts to record the victim's statement under Section 35 of the POCSO Act before considering bail, ensuring compliance with victim protection protocols. The ruling directs police to facilitate victim testimony as a prerequisite for bail, reinforcing procedural safeguards in sexual offence cases.
Supreme Court holds that 'knowledge' under Section 19 of the POCSO Act encompasses credible information from the victim, even without direct evidence. Failure to report such disclosures attracts criminal liability, as seen in the conviction of a school official while discharging others for lack of direct knowledge.
The Allahabad High Court granted bail in a POCSO case where the victim’s statement contradicted the FIR, no medical evidence supported penetrative assault, and the conduct fell under Section 8 - not Section 6. This reinforces that proportionality and evidentiary rigor must guide bail decisions in sexual offence cases, especially where allegations lack corroboration and involve non-penetrative acts.
Bombay High Court grants bail in a POCSO case after finding that the medical report did not confirm penetrative sexual assault and the victim’s police statement omitted key allegations. The ruling underscores that proportionality and evidentiary gaps may justify bail even in serious offences under the POCSO Act.
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a 66-year-old accused in a rape case after finding no physical evidence of assault and no corroboration of the viral video allegation, reinforcing that absence of medical injury and unproven digital claims undermine the prima facie case under BNSS. This sets a critical precedent for bail in sexual offence cases where forensic evidence is nil and digital allegations remain unverified.
Gauhati High Court rules that voluntary intoxication cannot absolve an accused under Section 376(3) IPC and POCSO Act, upholding a 20-year sentence for raping a minor. The court also directed victim compensation within three months, reinforcing the irrelevance of intoxication as a defence in sexual offences against children.
Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that in sexual offence cases under Section 64 BNS, the victim’s testimony and gravity of the offence can override the absence of custodial interrogation need, setting a precedent for stricter scrutiny in pre-arrest bail applications. The decision reinforces pre-arrest bail as an exceptional remedy, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims.
Allahabad HC acquitted the accused in a rape case, ruling that the victim's voluntary conduct and failure to prove coercion undermined the prosecution's case. The ossification test alone was deemed insufficient to establish minor status, reinforcing the need for corroborative evidence in sexual offence convictions.
Sikkim High Court rules that the testimony of a differently abled victim, even if unable to identify the aggressor, is sufficient for conviction under Section 376(2)(l) IPC when supported by medical and forensic evidence. The judgment underscores that inconsistencies or silences in testimony cannot suppress truth in cases involving disabled witnesses, reinforcing disability rights in criminal proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a minor victim's consistent testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction under the POCSO Act even if the accused was previously acquitted in a separate case. The judgment reaffirms that prior acquittal does not bar prosecution where fresh evidence emerges, setting a critical precedent for sexual offence trials.
MP High Court grants bail in a BNS Section 69 case, emphasizing that consensual relationships between educated, unmarried adults weaken the 'deceit' allegation, reinforcing bail as the rule when investigation is complete and no criminal antecedents exist. The ruling underscores the need for courts to scrutinize the factual matrix before denying liberty in cases involving pretext of marriage.