Recall on POCSO Act Jan’2024

POCSO – Evidentiary value of the victim girl

(Mani @ Manikandan Appellant Vs State by the Inspector of Police J.J. Nagar Police Station, Mogappair East Chennai. Respondent – Crl.A.No.244 of 2019 – 10.06.2022 – Madras Division Bench)

POCSO: Acquittal – less IQ for the victim

(Murugesan @ Murugan vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Gobichettipalayam Erode District Cr.No.6/2016 – CRL.A.No.125 of 2022 – 09.01.2023 – Madras Division Bench)

POCSO act with murder: Death sentence confirmed

(State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Embal Police Station, udukkottai District. (Crime No.119 of 2020) vs Samivel @ Raja – R.T.(MD)No.2 of 2021 and Crl.A.(MD)No.534 of 2021; R.T.(MD)No.2 of 2021 – 12.01.2022)

POCSO BAIL: Direction to file an affidavit to marry the girl after she attains majority

(Mugesh vs. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Crime No.460 of 2022) – Crl.O.P.No.2626 of 2023 – 10.03.2023)

POCSO: In pocso cases section 29 comes into play only after prosecution proves the foundational facts

(Aranganathan vs. STATE Represented by Inspector of Police, W8-All Women Police Station, Tirumangalam, Crime No.334 of 2014, Chennai – Crl.A. No. 535 of 2016 – 17.03.2023)

POCSO: Section 6 of pocso act leavs no discretion to the court to impose minimum sentence

(State of U.P versus Sonu Kushwaha – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1633 of 2023 – July 5, 2023)

POCSO case acquitted based on victim’s s. 164 cr.p.c statement

(P. YUVAPRAKASH vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO (S). 1898 OF 2023 – JULY 18, 2023).

POCSO CASE : petition for compromise quash filed by the victim herself stating she wants to marry some other person – madras high court after enquiry, dismissed the petition, on impression that the petitioner was not filed the petition voluntarily

(P.Jayashree .. Petitioner/Defacto complainant versus 1.The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, W-29, Avadi Alla Women Police Station, Chennai 600 054. (Cr.No.3/2023) – Crl.O.P.No.22545 of 2023 – 16.10.2023).

POCSO: Since section 29 of the Act necessitates the accused to rebut the case it is just to recall the witness for cross examination

(S.Ganeshan,… Petitioner Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Periyanaikkanpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore. … Respondent – Citation: Crl.O.P.No.4131 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.2060 of 2022 DATED: 07.03.2022).

POCSO: Accused did not rebut the evidence against evidence of victim

(Baskar Petitioner Vs State by the Inspector of Police Rasipuram Police Station, Namakkal Respondent – Citation :Crl.A.No.731 of 2018 Dated: In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras Reserved On: 09.02.2022 Pronounced On : 01.03.2022).