SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 2331

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
RE: ALARMING RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED CHILD RAPE INCIDENTS
SUO MOTO WRIT (CRIMINAL) NO.1/2019
WITH W.P.(C) No.819/2019 (PIL-W)
Decided On : 13-11-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Manoj V. George, Adv., Ms. Shilpa Liza George, Adv., Mr. Aakarsh Kamra, AOR, Ms. Bhavika, Adv., Mr. Renjit Abraham, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv., Mr. S.S. Rebello, Adv., Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv., Mr. N.K. Gokhle, Adv., Ms. Neela Gokhale, Adv., Mr. Ilam Paridi, Adv., Ms. Shradha Agrawal, Adv., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Rajesh, Adv., Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv., Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv., Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv., Mr. P.N. Ravindran, Sr. Adv., Mr. T.G.N. Nair, Adv., Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR, Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv., Mr. S. Manuraj, Adv., Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR, Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv., Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR, Mr. Sherick Dhingra, Adv., Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, AOR, Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR, Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv., Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR, Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv., Mr. Prem Sunder Jha, AOR, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR, Mr. Anoop Kandari, Adv., Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR, Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR, Mr. Gowtham Polanki, Adv., Mr. Avinash Tripathi, Adv., Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR, Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR, Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv., Shalya Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Udit Bansal, Adv., Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR, Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv., Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv., Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Adv., Mr. Divyansh Tiwari, Adv., Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv., Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv., Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv., Ms. Geetanjali, Adv., M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co.,, Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR, Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv., Mr. S. Mahesh Sahasranaman, Adv., Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, AOR, Mr. Venkatish Rao, Adv., Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv., Ms. C. Sharma, Adv., Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR, Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv., Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv., Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR, Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR, Mr. Samarth Khanna, Adv., Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv., Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv., Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR, Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv., Mr. P.H. Parekh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Tanya Chaudhry, Adv., Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Adv., Ms. Nikita Pandey, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Ramdev, Adv., Ms. Ashna Bhatnagar, Adv., For M/s. Parekh & Co., Mr. R. P. Gupta, AOR, Intervenor-in-person, Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR, Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR, Ms. Palak Mahajan, Adv., Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Adv., Ms. Shweta Mulchandani, Adv., Ms. Tanuja Manjari Patra, Adv., Ms. Aswathi M.K., AOR, Mr. Kaarthi, Adv., Ms. Yogita Ahuja, Adv., Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Adv., Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv., Mr. Leishangthem Roshmani Kh, AOR, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv., Mr. Aribam Jankinath Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, AOR, Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Amartya Singh, Adv., Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anand Kr. Dubey, Adv., Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR, Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv., AAG, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR, Mr. S. Raja Rajeshwaran, Adv., Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Adv., Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR, Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Adv., Mr. Srinivas Vishven, Adv., Ms. Akshara Chauhan, Adv., Shreyase Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv., Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv., Mr. Amit Verma, Adv., Ms. Kajal Dalal, Adv., Mr. Prastut Dalvi, Adv., Mr. Naveen Kumar, Adv., M/s. PLR Chambers And Co., Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv., Ms. G. Indira, AOR, Mr. Piyush Dwivedi, AOR, Ms. Priyanka Dixit, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR, Ms. Naveen Goel, Adv., Mr. Dushyant Sarna, Adv., Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv., Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv., Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv., Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv., Mr. P.S. Negi, Adv., Ms. Shruti Ram Kochar, Adv., Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv., Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv., Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Adv., Ms. Upma Bhatacherjee, Adv., Mr. Arun R. Pedneker, Adv., Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Ms. Mukti Chaudhry, Adv., Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv., Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Adv., Mr. Ankit Goel, Adv., Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv., Mr. S. Kumar Jain, Adv., Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Ms. Anika Nissar Sayyed, Adv., Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv., Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv., Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv., Mr. Deniel Stone Lyngdoh, Adv., Mr. Vikas Mahajan, AAG, Mr. Joydip Roy, Adv., Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv., Mr. Akash Verma, Adv., Ms. Monika Gusain, Adv., Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv., Ms. Mahima C. Shroff, Adv., Ms. Yashika Verma, Adv., Ms. Riya Thomas, Adv., Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shailja Nanda Mishra, Adv., Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv., Mr. D.K. Devesh, Adv., Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Adv., Ms. Shashi Pathak, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv., Mr. G. Prakash, Adv., Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Adv., Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv., Mr. Vinay Arora, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain, Adv., Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Annika Nissar Sayyed, Adv., for Mr. A.S. Syyed, Adv., Ms. Sneha Kalita, Adv., Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Adv., Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv., Mr. P.I. Jose, Adv., Mr. Harikumar V, Adv., Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR, Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv., Mr. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, Adv., Ms. Poonam Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Gagan Deep Kaur, Adv.

Headnote:

POCSO Act, 2012 - Order - Alarming rise in number of reported child rape incidents – Assault - Sexual Assault - Sexual Harassment - Use of Children for Pornography – Abetment - It appears that at all stages of dealing with POCSO cases commencing with investigation up to stage of trial, time lines stipulated under Act have not been complied with - It appears that one major reason for inability of stake holders to meet deadline stipulated under Act, is lack of awareness and lack of dedication in completing investigation, etc. within time frame stipulated and also inadequacy of number of courts which has resulted in cases remaining pending beyond period mandated for completion of trial under Act – Held, Court direct all State Governments as well as Union of India to do what is required to be done to ensure that all stages of investigation as well as trial, as contemplated under Act, are completed within time frame by creation of additional force for investigation. Court further direct Union of India and State Governments to take steps for sensitization of officials associated with investigation and also for creation or assignment of dedicated courts to try POCSO cases on top priority so that charge-sheets are filed within mandatory period and trials are completed within time frame contemplated under Act – Ordered accordingly.

ORDER :

We have gone through the report of Shri Surinder S. Rathi, Registrar of the Supreme Court. In paragraphs 7.1 to 7.9 of the said Report, the relevant figures are mentioned, hich are being extracted below:-

“7.1 Percentage share of different types of offences under POCSO (National Analysis):

POCSO Offence

Rounded Percentage

Penetrative Sexual Assault {S.4}

Aggravated Penetrative Sexual

32.1

24

Assault {S.6}

Sexual Assault {S.8}

Aggravated Sexual Assault {S.10} Sexual Harassment {S.12}

Use of Children for Pornography

{S.14 & 15}

Abetment {S.17}

 

31

3

8

1

2

7.2 Gender-wise percentage of victimisation under POCSO FIRs:

Girl

Boy

Other

80%

6%

14%

7.3 Age profile of Victims under POCSO:

0-6 yrs

4%

6-12 yrs

13%

13-16 yrs

60%

16-18 yrs

22%

7.4 Whether accused is Known/Stranger or Relative of victim:

Friends & Neighbours

27%

Relatives

7%

School Staff

1%

Other known person

56%

Stranger

9%

7.5 Time taken in completion of investigation:

Within 30 days

18%

31-60 days

17%

61-180 days

29%

181-365 days

16%

More than one year

20%

7.6 Time taken by Police in depositing Samples with FSL Laboratory:

Within 30 days

51%

31-60 days

19%

61-180 days

17%

181-365 days

6%

More than one year

7%

7.7 Percentage of cases in which support person is provided:

Support Person not provided

96%

Support Person provided

4%

7.8 Percentage of cases in which interim compensation/final compensation provided:

Interim Compensation NOT provided

99%

Interim Compensation provided

1%

Final Compensation NOT provided

99%

Final Compensation provided

1%

7.9 Pendency of POCSO Cases in percentage (Sec.35(2) mandates trial to be completed within one year):

Pending for more than 4 years

8%

Pending for 3-4 years

10%

Pending for 2-3 years

17%

Pending for 1-2 years

28%

Pending for less than 1 year

37%

This report shows a shocking state of affairs. What to talk of trials, in 20% of the cases even investigation is not completed within one year. Virtually, no support persons are provided and no compensation is paid to the victims. Almost two-third of the cases are pending trial for more than one year.

It appears that at all stages of dealing with POCSO cases commencing with the investigation up to the stage of trial, the time lines stipulated under the Act have not been complied with. From the report of Shri Rathi, it appears that one major reason for the inability of the stake holders to meet the deadline stipulated under the Act, is lack of awareness and lack of dedication in completing investigation, etc. within the time frame stipulated and also inadequacy of the number of courts which has resulted in cases remaining pending beyond the period mandated for completion of trial under the Act.

We hope and expect that the Central Government will play a much more proactive role to ensure that trials of cases arising out of the POCSO Act are completed in the time frame laid down in the Act.

We direct all the State Governments as well as the Union of India to do what is required to be done to ensure that all stages of investigation as well as trial, as contemplated under the Act, are completed within the time frame by creation of additional force for investigation. We further direct the Union of India and the State Governments to take steps for sensitization of officials associated with the investigation and also for creation or assignment of dedicated courts to try POCSO cases on top priority so that charge-sheets are filed within the mandatory period and trials are completed within the time frame contemplated under the Act.

Report of the action taken will be placed before this Court and will be considered by a Be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top