Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dealt with a suo motu writ petition and a criminal appeal arising from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The background involves a 14-year-old victim who left her home on 20th May 2018 and was allegedly enticed by the accused, aged 25. The victim's mother lodged an FIR on 29th May 2018. The accused was arrested on 19th December 2021 after a gross delay in investigation. The Special Judge under the POCSO Act convicted the accused for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, rape under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) IPC, and kidnapping under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The High Court, by its impugned judgment dated 18th October 2023, acquitted the accused for kidnapping and, purportedly exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC, set aside the conviction for the POCSO and IPC offences, noting that the victim was residing with the accused and had a child. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the victim was a minor, her consent was irrelevant, and the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault was proved as she became pregnant. The Court upheld the acquittal for kidnapping as there was no evidence of taking or enticing. However, the Court restored the conviction for the POCSO and IPC offences, holding that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused based on the victim's consent and cohabitation. The Supreme Court also strongly criticized the High Court for making irrelevant and personal observations about the victim's appearance and for giving advice to the legislature and younger generation, stating that a judgment must be confined to the issues and must not contain personal opinions. The Court directed that the accused be taken into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Consent of Minor Irrelevant - The accused, aged 25, had sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old victim resulting in pregnancy. The Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 6 POCSO Act was fully proved as the victim was a minor and consent was immaterial. The High Court's acquittal was set aside. (Paras 10-12) B) Criminal Law - Rape - Sections 375, 376(2)(n), 376(3) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Repeated Rape of Minor - The victim being under 16 years, the offence of rape was made out regardless of consent. The repeated nature attracted Section 376(2)(n) and the victim's age attracted Section 376(3). The Supreme Court restored the conviction. (Paras 11-12) C) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Sections 361, 363, 366 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Taking or Enticing from Lawful Guardianship - The evidence showed the victim left home voluntarily. The mother's deposition and the victim's statement indicated no taking or enticing by the accused. Hence, the High Court's acquittal for kidnapping was upheld. (Para 12) D) Criminal Procedure - Appellate Judgment - Requirements of a Judgment - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The Supreme Court held that an appellate judgment must contain a concise statement of facts, nature of evidence, submissions, reappreciation of evidence, and reasons for conviction or acquittal. The judgment must not contain personal opinions, advice, or irrelevant material. (Paras 13-14) E) Constitutional Law - Judicial Conduct - Article 141, Constitution of India - The Supreme Court deprecated the High Court's practice of making personal observations about the victim's appearance and giving advice to the legislature and younger generation. Such observations are irrelevant and undermine the dignity of the court. (Paras 15-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused for offences under the POCSO Act and IPC based on the victim's consent and subsequent cohabitation, and whether the High Court's judgment contained irrelevant and objectionable observations.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment insofar as it acquitted the accused for offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge for these offences were restored. The High Court's acquittal for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was upheld. The suo motu writ petition was disposed of. The Court directed that the accused be taken into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Law Points
- Consent of minor is irrelevant for rape under Section 375 IPC
- Aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 POCSO Act proved by pregnancy
- Kidnapping requires taking or enticing out of lawful guardianship
- Appellate court must reappreciate evidence and give reasons
- Judgment must not contain personal opinions or advice
