Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Court laid down directions to implement Section 19 (6) of POCSO Act and JJ Act provisions to ensure rehabilitation of child victims. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2 judge Bench consisting of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. 

Facts   

• The criminal appeal was filed by the State of West Bengal against a judgment passed by the High Court of Calcutta on 18th October 2023. 
• The accused was originally convicted by a Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) for offenses under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The victim was a fourteen-year-old girl at the time of the incident which occurred on May 20, 2018. 
• The victim's mother filed a First Information Report (FIR) on 29th May 2018, alleging that the accused had enticed her minor daughter to leave home. 
• A female child was born to the victim, and the accused is the biological father of this child. 
• There was a significant delay in the investigation, with the accused being arrested only on 19th December 2021. 
• The High Court acquitted the accused of offenses under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and also set aside his conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 
• The High Court noted that the victim's mother had disowned her, and the victim was continuously residing with the accused along with their minor child. 
• Following the High Court's judgment, a Suo Motu writ petition was initiated based on directions from the Chief Justice of India. 
• The State Government filed a criminal appeal challenging the High Court's order of acquittal.

Issues Involved  

• Whether the judgment delivered by the High Court is liable to be set aside? 
• Can an act which is an offence be described as ‘romantic relationship’? 
• What is the scope of exercise of plenary powers to quash conviction under the POCSO Act? 
• Whether the State is under an obligation to take care of the victim of an offence under the POCSO Act who was fourteen years old? 
• What are the directions issued by the Supreme Court in this regard? 

Observations 

• With Respect to Issue (i): 
  • The Court held that in the present facts it is undisputed that the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault has been committed. 
  • However, the Court held that it cannot be said that the offence under Section 363, 366 of IPC has been committed. This is due to the fact that there is no evidence to show that the accused took the victim out of the keeping of the lawful guardian or enticed the victim. 
  • Hence, in the present facts the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the offence of kidnapping. However, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 376 (2) (n) and (3) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.   
• With Respect to Issue (ii): 
  • The Court held that in view of offences under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 376 of IPC penetrative intercourse with a woman less than 18 years with or without consent amounts to rape. 
  • The Court observed that an offence punishable under POCSO Act cannot be treated as “a romantic relationship”. 
  • The Courts must follow and implement the law and cannot commit violence against the law.  
• With Respect to Issue (iii): 
  • While the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash prosecution based on settlement or consent in some cases, this does not apply to serious offences. 
  • For serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, and other crimes of mental depravity under the IPC or moral turpitude under special statutes, settlements between offenders and victims have no legal validity. 
  • Even if the accused and victim (now an adult) reached a settlement, the High Court could not have quashed the prosecution given the established legal position. 
• With Respect to Issue (iv): 
  • Under Section 19(6) of POCSO Act, police were required to report the matter to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and the Special Court within 24 hours of learning about the offence. 
  • Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (JJA) establishes the Child Welfare Committee, which has authority to address cases involving care, protection, treatment, development, and rehabilitation of children in need. 
  • Even children with parents or guardians fall under the definition in Section 2(14) of the JJA if those parents or guardians are deemed unfit to provide care. 
  • Section 46 requires State Governments to create rules providing financial support to children living in care institutions upon turning 18. 
  • The financial support must be comprehensive to facilitate reintegration into mainstream society. 
  • In this case, these statutory provisions were completely overlooked, creating a situation that prevented the victim from making an informed choice about her future. 
  • The victim was denied this opportunity even after reaching adulthood. 
• With Regard to compliance and implementation of Section 19 (6) of POCSO Act: 
  • The State has a responsibility to care for helpless victims. 
  • The right to live a dignified life is an integral part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
  • Article 21 includes the right to lead a healthy life. 
  • Minor victims of POCSO Act offenses are deprived of their fundamental right to live dignified and healthy lives. 
  • The same deprivation applies to children born to victims as a result of the offense. 
  • All provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act regarding care and rehabilitation of such children align with Article 21 of the Constitution. 
  • The State and its agencies must immediately provide all possible aid to child victims of heinous POCSO offenses to enable them to lead dignified lives. 
  • Failure to provide such aid constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. 
  • Police must strictly implement Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act. 
  • Non-implementation of Section 19(6) deprives victims of benefits under welfare measures in the JJ Act. 
  • Compliance with Section 19(6) is of vital importance. 
  • Non-compliance with Section 19(6) leads to a violation of Article 21. 
• With Respect to Issue (v): 
  • The Court issued directions to the State to form an expert committee. 
  • The State Government must provide all material details of the benefits it is willing to extend to the victim. 
  • The committee is required to meet with the victim at a location of her choice to communicate what the State Government is offering. 
  • The committee must inform the victim about available benefits under the Government of India's scheme. 
  • The committee's duty is to help the victim make an informed choice between remaining with the accused and his family or availing benefits offered by the State Government. 
  • The committee coordinator must submit a report in a sealed cover to the Supreme Court. 
  • The Supreme Court Registry is directed to forward copies of this judgment to Secretaries of Law and/or Justice Departments across all States and Union Territories. 
  • These Secretaries are required to convene meetings with Secretaries of concerned departments and other senior officials. 
  • The purpose of these meetings is to ensure appropriate directions are issued for strict implementation of Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act and relevant provisions of the JJ Act. 

Conclusion 

The judgment established a significant precedent by highlighting the State's constitutional obligation under Article 21 to provide rehabilitation and support to POCSO victims through the mandatory implementation of Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act and relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, thereby ensuring victims can make informed choices about their future.