LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents

Not available · 2024 INSC 614Decided 20 Aug 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

A 14-year-old girl in West Bengal went missing from home in 2018 and was later found to have been enticed away by an adult man with the help of his sisters; she gave birth to his child, and he was the admitted biological father. A Special Court convicted the man under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and related provisions of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment. The Calcutta High Court, however, controversially acquitted him, noting that the girl's mother had disowned her and that she was continuing to live with the accused and their child, and used its inherent powers to set aside the POCSO conviction as well. Alarmed by this reasoning, the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu proceedings, and the West Bengal Government separately appealed the acquittal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court restored the conviction, holding that the High Court could not use its inherent/writ powers to override a factual finding of guilt under POCSO and effectively legitimise what remained a case of sexual offence against a minor, regardless of the couple's subsequent cohabitation or the birth of a child. The Court found the conviction under Section 376(2)(n)/(3) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act must stand, while confirming the acquittal on the separate kidnapping-related charges. Recognising the extraordinarily difficult position of the now-adult victim, who has a child with the convict and nowhere else to turn, the Court directed the West Bengal Government to set up an expert committee (including a psychologist and social scientist) to sensitively counsel her, explain all government rehabilitation benefits available, and help her make a genuinely informed choice about her and her child's future, with sentencing on the accused deferred until this report is received. The Court also directed the judgment be circulated to all States/Union Territories to ensure the mandatory victim-rehabilitation provisions of the POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act are properly implemented going forward.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal conviction for a sexual offence against a minor cannot be undone merely because the victim later continues living with the offender or has a child with him. The law's protective purpose survives such circumstances, and the State has a continuing duty to ensure genuine victim rehabilitation and informed choice, not just secure a conviction on paper.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case