The lecture was focused on trauma-informed responses to child sexual abuse and delve into understanding the psychological effects of sexual abuse, responding to disclosure, and how lawyers can imbibe trauma-informed practice when working with survivors of abuse.

In a recent judgment, the Telangana High Court overturned the conviction of a man accused of raping a 10-year-old girl, citing inconsistencies in evidence and concerns over the reliability of the child’s testimony. The ruling raises serious questions about the treatment of child survivors in the justice system and the high evidentiary burden placed on them in sexual assault cases.

The case originated from allegations that the accused had forcibly entered the child’s home at night and raped her while her father, grandfather, and other family members were sleeping beside her. The girl’s mother, who was outside near a temple, returned home to find her daughter distressed. The child then recounted the incident to her family, and a police complaint was filed. The accused was arrested, and the trial court convicted him based on testimonies from the minor, her mother, her elder brother, and a neighbour. However, upon appeal, the High Court highlighted significant gaps in evidence. The court noted that key witnesses were not examined, the medical reports did not support claims of physical injuries, and forensic reports contradicted the assertion that blood was found on the child’s frock. The court also found it improbable that such an act could occur in a small, occupied room without waking others.

A major factor in the acquittal was the court’s view that the child’s testimony appeared “tutored” and possibly influenced by family members. The ruling emphasized that child witnesses can be easily manipulated and that accepting their testimony without corroboration could be risky. Given these concerns, the court acquitted the accused, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case reflects broader issues in child sexual abuse trials, where survivors often struggle to meet strict evidentiary standards. While courts must ensure fair trials, the dismissal of a child’s testimony

Case Title: Begari Ravi Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Citation: MANU/TL/1356/2024, CRLA/88/2024

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised while resolving disputes between parents. The case involved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Madras High Court’s order, which upheld the interim visitation rights granted to a father but modified the location for these visits.

The parents, married in 2021, had a daughter in June 2022, and in June 2023, the mother filed for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The father sought visitation rights during the pending divorce proceedings, which the Family Court granted, directing that the mother take the child to Karur, Tamil Nadu, every Sunday for visitation at a temple. The mother, now residing in Madurai, argued that the 300 km round trip would adversely affect the child’s health and cited threats to her safety as further grounds to challenge the visitation order. The High Court dismissed the mother’s appeal, noting that the father, as a natural guardian, was entitled to custody and visitation rights. Despite unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation, the High Court modified the visitation schedule, extending the father’s access hours and planning for alternating weekends after two months.

The Supreme Court, however, found the visitation arrangement at Karur unsuitable due to the child’s tender age and health concerns. It observed that while the father’s visitation rights should be upheld, they should not come at the expense of the child’s well-being. The Court thus directed that visitations occur in Madurai, where the child and mother reside, every Sunday from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm, with the mother present during these meetings. 

Case Title: Sugirtha v. Gowtham

Citation: 2024 INSC 1036

The Delhi High Court recently directed that all the hospitals must provide free medical treatment to survivors of rape, acid attacks, and cases under the POCSO Act. 

The Division Bench acknowledged the significant number of survivors of rape and POCSO cases, requiring urgent medical intervention, or prolonged medical assistance (inclusing hospitalisation, surgeries, counselling and other treatments) often face difficulty availing free medical treatment despite provisions under BNSS (or CrPC). 

The Hon’ble High Court issued the following directions noting the same. 

1. The High Court has mandated all the Central/ State Government hospitals, Private hospitals, nursing homes and clinics to not refuse medical treatment or any services that would be needed to assist the victims/survivors in Rape cases and POCSO cases. 
2. If any victim/survivor approaches a medical facility whether private and public/Government, such victim/survivors are not to be turned away without providing free medical treatment.
3. Such victim/survivor shall be immediately examined and provide physical and mental counselling as may be required.
4. Such victims/survivors shall be checked for pregnancy and provide contraception if required.
5. Medical facilities shall put a board displaying “free out-patient and in patient medical treatment is available for victims/survivors of sexual assault, rape, gang rape, acid attacks, etc.” The board is to be displayed at the entrance, the reception, and all prominent places within the medical facility.
6. In Delhi, if victims/survivors seek assistance from DSLSA/DLSA for free medical treatment, the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme (DVCS) mandates the DSLSA/DLSA to forward their cases to the Government of NCT of Delhi for free treatment at government hospitals. Additionally, DSLSA/DLSA may refer such cases to private hospitals, nursing homes, or laboratories if needed.

Case Name: S.V. versus State 

Citation : CRL.A. 728/2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1343/2024 

The parents of the minor petitioner were married in 2005. The petitioner was born in 2006. In 2006, the petitioner’s father abandoned the matrimonial house and has not returned ever since to resume his marital life. Subsequently, in 2011 the petitioner’s father initiated divorce proceedings, but ceased to further participate. As a result of this non-participation, the divorce petition was dismissed in 2014. The petitioner was raised by his mother alone. 

The respondent has denied the petitioners application for a caste certificate, asserting that such applications must be made through the Father. Despite the petitioner’s mother citing circulars issued in 2020 and 2022, which permit the issuance of caste certificates to single, divorced, or separated women, the application was rejected on the grounds that the mother is not legally divorced or separated.

The petitioner contended that the prolonged abandonment of the family by the father amounts to de facto separation and should be considered sufficient grounds for the issuance of the caste certificate. Further, placing reliance on the same circulars, petitioner’s mother received her own caste certificate.

The court recognised that the circulars of 2020 and 2022 were intended to accommodate children whose paternal ties are severed de facto (of fact) and not de jure (by law). The court weighed the arguments and facts and claimed that the expression “separated/divorced/single women” cannot be construed narrowly depriving the petitioner of an unbiased relief. The court also emphasized the mother has already been recognized as a member of the Scheduled Caste community and denying the petitioner a caste certificate would defeat the purpose of circulars of 2020 and 2022.

The court allowed the petition and issued the following directions:

(i)     The Petitioner must submit a fresh representation, including all relevant documents, such as the mother’s caste certificate, and provide details justifying their entitlement under the circulars dated 20th July 2020 and 13th July 2022.

(ii)     Upon receiving the representation, the respondent must assess the Petitioner’s case within two weeks and refrain from rejecting it solely due to the absence of a formal divorce or judicial separation decree. The respondent must consider the factual reality of the father’s prolonged abandonment as constituting de facto separation.

Case Name: Deep Minor v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

Citation:  W.P.(C) 9141/2023

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant sought suspension of his sentence. The Court noted that he had already served approximately two years of imprisonment, leaving only one year remaining. Additionally, he had no prior criminal history, and his jail conduct was found to be satisfactory.

The Court also took into account precedents such as Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259), where the Supreme Court stated that in cases other than life sentences, completing at least 50% of the sentence could be a basis for granting bail.

Considering these factors, the Delhi High Court found it appropriate to suspend the appellant’s sentence. The suspension was granted on the condition that the appellant furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000 along with a surety of the same amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate.

The ruling reinforces the principle that sentence suspension can be considered when a substantial portion of the punishment has already been served and when the accused’s conduct during incarceration is satisfactory. However, the suspension does not imply acquittal and the appeal proceedings will continue.

Case Title: Anil v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: CRL.A. 1036 of 2024

The Kerala High Court has rejected a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that settlements between the accused and the victim or their parents cannot be a valid ground for termination of prosecution in serious sexual offence cases.

The case involved a 29-year-old accused charged under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the POCSO Act for engaging in sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old girl on two occasions. The matter came to light when the victim disclosed the incidents while appearing before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad, in connection with a separate missing case. Following this, the police registered a case and later filed a final report implicating the accused.

The accused sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that the allegations were false and coerced by the police. He submitted an affidavit signed by the victim before a Notary Public, stating that her statements to the police were made under duress. Additionally, he pointed out that the victim had previously filed an application before the Additional Sessions Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram, to withdraw her statements, but the request was denied. Based on these claims, the petitioner contended that the victim’s willingness to retract her statements was sufficient grounds to terminate the proceedings.

The Kerala High Court, however, dismissed the petition, asserting that mere affidavits retracting allegations cannot replace a proper trial. The Court emphasized that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which grants the High Court the power to quash proceedings, should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It ruled that cases involving sexual offences under the POCSO Act have serious implications for society, and terminating prosecution on the basis of settlements would be detrimental to justice.

The Court observed that allowing such settlements would create a dangerous precedent where accused individuals could influence victims or their families to withdraw complaints, thereby obstructing justice. It reiterated that the primary objective of the POCSO Act is to protect children from sexual exploitation, and any dilution of this principle would defeat the purpose of the law.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and directed that the trial proceed in accordance with the law.

Case title: Anand v. State of Kerala
Citation: CRL.MC NO. 2219 OF 2020

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has initiated suo moto proceedings to examine the compliance, awareness, and monitoring of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), after noting a significant rise in cases involving victims aged 16–18 years and offenders aged 19–22 years. The Court emphasized that this is a serious social issue that threatens the future of the country’s youth.

While hearing criminal appeals against convictions under the POCSO Act, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Rusia observed that a large number of cases of sexual assault and harassment of minors are pending before Special Courts and the High Court. The Court directed the registry to register a suo moto writ petition to assess the enforcement of Sections 43 and 44 of the POCSO Act and issued notices to various government authorities, requiring them to file replies within four weeks.

The POCSO Act was enacted to address inadequacies in existing laws concerning sexual offences against children and came into force on 14-11-2012. However, the Court highlighted that across Madhya Pradesh, many trials remain pending in Special Courts, and 14,531 criminal appeals are pending in all three benches of the High Court. The Court expressed concern over the trend of cases involving young victims and accused persons, emphasizing the need for stronger awareness and compliance mechanisms.

Under Section 43 of the POCSO Act, the Central and State Governments are responsible for publicizing the Act widely through various media channels, raising awareness among children, parents, and the general public, and conducting periodic training for law enforcement officials. Section 44 mandates the National and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights to monitor the implementation of the Act. The Court observed that the lack of awareness about the provisions of the POCSO Act is a key factor contributing to the rise in sexual offences against children.

To address these concerns, the Court directed the registry to register the matter as a suo moto writ petition and issue notices to:

• Union of India (Ministry of Women and Child Development)
• Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh
• Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development, M.P.
• Director General of Police, M.P.
• National Commission for Protection of Child Rights
• State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (if established)

The Court emphasized the necessity of compliance with Sections 43 and 44 of the POCSO Act to curb sexual offences against minors and ensure the protection of children’s rights.

[Click here to read/download the judgment]

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and murdering a four-year-old child. While upholding his conviction under Sections 302, 364, and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Court replaced the death penalty with rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without remission.

The Court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime but determined that it did not fall under the rarest of rare category, thereby justifying the commutation of the death sentence.

The convict was initially sentenced to death by the Trial Court, which found him guilty of luring the child with ice cream, committing aggravated sexual assault, and then strangling the victim to death. The Gujarat High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence. The convict then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the quantum of punishment.

Upon reviewing the post-mortem report, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the child had suffered a homicidal death due to asphyxia by throttling. However, the Court also examined mitigating factors before making its final decision on the sentence.

The Supreme Court based its decision on the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence, as follows:

1. Last Seen Theory: The accused was last seen with the child before the murder. The law mandates that the accused must provide a plausible explanation for parting ways with the victim. In this case, no satisfactory explanation was given, strengthening the prosecution’s case.
2. Presence at the Crime Scene: Witnesses confirmed the convict’s presence near the crime scene, forming another strong link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
3. Injuries on the Accused: The convict’s medical examination revealed injuries on his genitals, further substantiating allegations of sexual assault.
4. Conduct Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act: The convict led the police to hidden evidence, including the victim’s clothes, demonstrating his knowledge of the crime.
5. Matching of Blood Group: Forensic tests confirmed that the blood on the victim’s clothes and anal swabs matched the convict’s blood type, further implicating him.

Additionally, the Court invoked Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which place the burden of proof on the accused in child sexual abuse cases. Since the convict failed to rebut the presumption of guilt, his conviction remained upheld.

While acknowledging the brutality of the crime, the Supreme Court considered several mitigating factors before deciding against capital punishment:

• The convict was 24 years old at the time of the crime.
• He had no prior criminal record.
• He came from a low socio-economic background.
• He was diagnosed with moderate psychotic features and intellectual disability, possibly stemming from tubercular meningitis in childhood.
• His prison conduct indicated a potential for reformation.

The Court ruled that the crime, although gruesome, did not meet the rarest of rare standard required for the death penalty. However, considering the severity of the offense, the Court held that regular life imprisonment (14 years) would be inadequate and instead imposed 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.

This ruling reflects the Supreme Court’s nuanced approach to justice—balancing retributive and reformative principles in sentencing. While ensuring strict punishment for heinous crimes, the judgment also leaves room for rehabilitation where feasible.

By setting clear standards for circumstantial evidence, this case also strengthens legal precedents in child sexual abuse trials under the POCSO Act and IPC.

Case Title: SAMBHUBHAI RAISANGBHAI PADHIYAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation:2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

The Kerala High Court has acquitted a woman previously convicted for the strangulation of her 1½-year-old son, overturning the trial court’s verdict on the grounds of insanity. The Court found that the accused suffered from severe mental health conditions at the time of the incident, rendering her incapable of understanding the consequences of her actions.

The case originated from the death of Alex, the younger child of the accused, on April 18, 2018. The appellant, a 39-year-old mother of two, lived with her husband, Joy. Her elder child was diagnosed with autism. On the day of the incident, while her husband was at work, the prosecution alleged that the appellant intentionally strangled Alex. However, her husband initially reported the death as an accidental fall from a cot. A medical examination later confirmed that the cause of death was strangulation.

The Additional Sessions Court in Thodupuzha convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on circumstantial evidence, including her alleged confession and medical findings. She subsequently appealed to the High Court, arguing that she was suffering from severe psychiatric conditions, as evidenced by expert medical testimony. The medical report established that she had a history of psychosis, hallucinations, and suicidal tendencies, further demonstrated by her attempted suicide two days after the incident. Despite this, the trial court had rejected her insanity plea for lack of sufficient evidence under Section 84 of the IPC.

The High Court reviewed her psychiatric history and found that she had been undergoing treatment for mental illness since 2007, both before and after the incident. It concluded that her condition impaired her cognitive faculties, preventing her from understanding the nature and consequences of her actions.

Criticizing the investigation, the Court highlighted that the Investigating Officer failed to conduct a medical examination of the accused despite clear indications of mental illness. It held that such omissions resulted in a flawed charge sheet. The Court observed:

“The filing of the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer, without ascertaining the mental state of the accused, reflects a dishonest approach, rendering the charge sheet defective due to the lack of investigation into this critical aspect. It can be reasonably inferred that the deliberate suppression of an investigation into the accused’s mental state was aimed at securing a conviction, even though the acts, when considered alongside Section 84 of the IPC, may not constitute an offence.”

The judgment also emphasized the importance of scientific investigation and welcomed the introduction of technological integration under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enhance transparency and efficiency in criminal proceedings. The Court recommended the establishment of a centralized knowledge repository for police officers to stay updated on legal developments, forensic advancements, and best investigative practices.

Given these findings, the High Court set aside the appellant’s conviction, allowing the appeal and acquitting her of the charges under Section 302 IPC.

Case Details:

Case Title: Rollymol v State of Kerala
Citation: CRL.A NO. 964 OF 2020