Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Calling a minor girl a prostitute or engaging in acts that involve sexual exploitation of a minor girl can attract charges under the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 67B of the IT Act. These sections address sexual offences against minors and the circulation of pornographic material involving minors ["AMAL CHANDRAN, Versus STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["AMAL CHANDRAN vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
The POCSO Act specifically criminalizes sexual assault, sexual harassment, and the circulation of sexually explicit material involving minors. For instance, allegations of sexual assault on a minor girl, including exploitation through digital means like sharing videos or photos, are punishable under Sections 14, 15 of the POCSO Act, and Section 67B of the IT Act ["AMAL CHANDRAN, Versus STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["AMAL CHANDRAN vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Section 67B of the IT Act pertains to the punishment for publishing or transmitting sexually explicit material involving minors. The section criminalizes sharing, publishing, or circulation of such material, and the mere possession or download of such content can attract legal action ["AMAL CHANDRAN, Versus STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["AMAL CHANDRAN vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
The term prostitute itself, when used to describe a minor girl, can be linked to offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and related sections of the IT Act if it involves exploitation, circulation of pornographic material, or sexual abuse ["AMAL CHANDRAN, Versus STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["AMAL CHANDRAN vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
In cases where minors are involved, courts emphasize that acts like circulating nude videos or photographs, or calling a minor a prostitute, are serious offences under these laws, with stringent punishments including imprisonment and fines ["AMAL CHANDRAN, Versus STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["AMAL CHANDRAN vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Calling a minor girl a prostitute or engaging in acts that involve sexual exploitation, including circulating pornographic material, can indeed attract Section 67B of the IT Act and the POCSO Act. The legal framework aims to protect minors from sexual exploitation and punish those involved in such offences severely. The provided sources consistently highlight that any act involving minors in sexual contexts, digital or physical, is treated as a grave offence under these laws.
References:- ["AMAL CHANDRAN, Versus STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]- ["AMAL CHANDRAN vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]
In today's digital age, social media posts and online messages can have serious legal consequences, especially when they target vulnerable groups like minors. A common question arises: does calling a minor girl a prostitute attract Section 67B of the IT Act? This query touches on critical issues of child protection in cyberspace. While not legal advice, this post breaks down the legal landscape, drawing from statutory provisions and judicial insights to provide clarity. Generally, such acts in electronic form may indeed invite liability under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), but context, intent, and specifics matter. Just Rights For Children Alliance VS S. Harish - 2024 7 Supreme 129
Section 67B is a robust safeguard against child exploitation online. It penalizes various electronic acts involving children (under 18) in obscene, indecent, or sexually explicit contexts. Punishment includes up to 5 years imprisonment and fines up to ₹10 lakhs on first conviction, escalating to 7 years subsequently. Just Rights For Children Alliance VS S. Harish - 2024 7 Supreme 129
Key subsections include:- 67B(b): Punishes creating, publishing, or transmitting material depicting children in an obscene, indecent, or sexually explicit manner, including text. Just Rights For Children Alliance VS S. Harish - 2024 7 Supreme 129- 67B(d): Targets acts that facilitate the abuse of children online in any indecent, lascivious, or prurient manner—no specific intent required, just likelihood of enabling abuse. Just Rights For Children Alliance VS S. Harish - 2024 7 Supreme 129
Labeling a minor girl a prostitute via text (e.g., social media, WhatsApp) could fall under these, as it implies sexual commodification, depicting the child indecently or paving the way for further exploitation. However, mere accidental transmission doesn't qualify; voluntariness is key. Akash Vijay VS State of Kerala - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 564Akhil Johny VS State of Kerala - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1470
Calling a minor a prostitute creates or transmits text that depicts children in obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner. The term evokes sexual trade, fitting the broad scope beyond images to text-based depictions. Courts interpret this purposively to curb child exploitation. Just Rights For Children Alliance VS S. Harish - 2024 7 Supreme 129
For instance, in cases of online harassment, similar electronic communications have triggered 67B. In one matter, accusations involved harassing a minor girl via messages, leading to charges under Section 67B alongside POCSO Act sections. VIJAYA VISHWAKARMA @ SHIVASHARMA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
This covers facilitates abusing children online, encompassing acts likely to enable indecent abuse. Publicly degrading a minor online could invite further harassment or exploitation, attracting liability without proving intent to abuse. Just Rights For Children Alliance VS S. Harish - 2024 7 Supreme 129
A case illustrates this: uploading a video of minors in an indecent context (body painting) was probed under 67B(d) for facilitation, showing broad electronic content application. Fathima A. S. , W/o. Manoj VS State Of Kerala - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 415
Courts emphasize actual electronic commission and voluntariness. Automatic acts, like unintended downloads, escape liability: automatic or accidental downloading... is not an offence under S.67B, once the specific intention to do so is not established. Akash Vijay VS State of Kerala - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 564Akhil Johny VS State of Kerala - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1470
Deliberate posting, however, is culpable. In a stalking case, sending pornographic messages to a 16-year-old via social media invoked Section 67B with POCSO Section 12. ANANDAKRISHNAN Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18306
Other precedents highlight 67B's use:- Threats to circulate rape videos of a minor led to 67B charges. ANIL SOMAN vs STATE OF KERALA - 2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33438- Posting morphed images exposing a POCSO victim attracted 67B. MD. NASIDUR RAHMAN AND ANR vs THE STATE OF ASSAM- Harassment threats to post content of a 15-year-old girl triggered Sections 67 and 67B. SRI NISANTH MOHANDASAN Vs THE STATE BY WEST CEN CRIME
These cases underscore 67B's role in digital child abuse, often alongside POCSO for obscene representations. Fathima A. S. , W/o. Manoj VS State Of Kerala - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 415
Sections 67, 67A, and 67B form a complete code for electronic obscenity, interpreted to suppress exploitation. Just Rights For Children Alliance VS S. Harish - 2024 7 Supreme 129
Victims can invoke POCSO Sections 13/14 for obscene child representations alongside 67B. In a body-painting case, courts linked them, deferring to investigation. Fathima A. S. , W/o. Manoj VS State Of Kerala - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 415
Related IPC sections like 366A (procuration of minor girl) require inducement for illicit intercourse, not directly applicable here but showing contextual overlaps. Conviction demands proven intent, absent in mere labeling. Uma Das W/o Chran Das vs State of Jharkhand - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 1012
Platforms must disable access on notice. Just Rights For Children Alliance VS S. Harish - 2024 7 Supreme 129
No POCSO presumption applies here. Just Rights For Children Alliance VS S. Harish - 2024 7 Supreme 129
In sum, while no direct precedent labels verbal slurs alone, Section 67B's breadth covers such electronic acts targeting minors. Digital responsibility is paramount—think before posting. This is general information; consult a lawyer for specific cases.
References:1. Just Rights For Children Alliance VS S. Harish - 2024 7 Supreme 129: Core analysis of 67B subsections.2. Fathima A. S. , W/o. Manoj VS State Of Kerala - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 415: 67B(d) facilitation example.3. Akash Vijay VS State of Kerala - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 564, Akhil Johny VS State of Kerala - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1470: Voluntariness rulings.4. Various cases like VIJAYA VISHWAKARMA @ SHIVASHARMA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA, ANANDAKRISHNAN Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18306 for applications.
#ITAct67B, #ChildCyberSafety, #CyberLawIndia
But he is facing trial again in SC No.818 of 2022, on charges under Sections 14 read with Sections 13 and 15 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 67B of the IT Act, on the complaint made by the very same victim. ... Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that Crime No.637 of 2020 and Crime No.635 of 2020 are registered for distinct offences and the petitioner was never tried or acquitted on charges under Section 14 read with Sections 13 and 15 of the POCSO Act and 67B of the IT Act. 5. ......
But he is facing trial again in SC No.818 of 2022, on charges under Sections 14 read with Sections 13 and 15 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 67B of the IT Act, on the complaint made by the very same victim. ... Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that Crime No.637 of 2020 and Crime No.635 of 2020 are registered for distinct offences and the petitioner was never tried or acquitted on charges under Section 14 read with Sections 13 and 15 of the POCSO Act and 67B of the IT Act. 5. ......
, 2012 and Section 67B (a)(b) of Information Technology Act, 2008. ... , 2012 and 67B (a)(b) of Information Technology Act, 2008 in the interest of justice and equity.” ... On such perusal, it is seen that noticing the depression of the minor girl, mother of the victim girl enquired her about the incident at that juncture victim girl ... Gist of the complaint averments reveal that minor daughter of the complainant pursuing ....
The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2 herein case came to be filed on 04.02.2022 stating that the accused said to be harassing victim girl the minor daughter of respondent ... and Section 506 of IPC and Section 67B of I.T. ... Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under sections 8, 12, 14, 15 of POCSO Act and SECTION 506 of IPC and Section 67B of I.T. ... alleged offence are under Section 14 of POCSO Act. ... Upon hea....
Even assuming for a moment that the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the allegations involve the downloading of videos of the 1st accused committing rape on the minor victim girl and an allegation of threat to the minor victim girl that the said videos would be circulated. ... Information Technology Act. ... The petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.185/2021 of Nedumpuzha Police Station, Thrissur District alleging commission of offences under Sections 363, 420, 506(i) and ....
of the Information Technology Act. ... The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the victim girl, who is aged about 15 years had lodged the complaint stating that the petitioner was causing threat to post p style="text-align ... enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.435/2021 registered by the West CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 67 and 67B ... be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with of Crime No.435/2021 re....
girl exposing the victim of POCSO act case. ... After that the matter was reported at Moirabari Police Station by the father of the minor girl and a case is registered vide Moirabari PS Case No- 150/22 U/S 354(A)/365 IPC RW Sec-12 of POCSO Act, 67A of IT Act and investigation is going on in this regard. ... Case No. 155/2022 registered u/s 228A of the IPC read with Sections 14/15 of the POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 67B of the I.T. Act#HL_END....
The prosecution case is that the petitioner stalked the minor girl aged 16 years and contacted her through social media and sent pornographic messages and demanded her nude photographs. ... Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.884 of 2021 of Oachira Police Station, Kollam District alleging offences under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code, Section 12 r/w Section 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ... Smt.Nima Ja....
Procuration of minor girl - Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall ... Those are : (1) the victim girl must be induced by the accused ; (2) she must be a minor under the age of 18 years and (3) she must be induced by ....
The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 78(1) (ii)(i) and 79 of BNS, Sections 67a and 67b of Information Technology (Amendment) Act , 2008, Section 67B of a href="./.. ... The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure -I order reads thus:- Information Technology Act , 2000 and Sections 12 , 11(i), 11(ii), 11(iii), 11(iv), 11(v), 11(vi), 14, 13(a), 13(b), 13(c), 15(1), 15(2) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act .
She rebuked the appellant for committing sexual act against the minor girl. The appellant requested her not to disclose the incident to the villagers and, as such, she did not disclose it to anybody. She also saw that the wearing panty and the frock of the victim girl were torn. On suspicion, she followed them and saw both of them committing physical relation.
The appellant hails from Melchithiraichavadi village in Uliyampalayam, Coimbatore and was temporarily residing with his grandmother Iyyammal, who was aged about 75 years, in a hut in Kasturi Naicken Pudur (for short "K.N. Pudur") in Pannimadai village. “X” was aged about 7 years and she was residing with her mother Vanitha (P.W.1) and a younger sister Rithikasree, aged 5 years, in Door No.2/72, K.N. Pudur, Pannimadai village. 2.1. Since it is a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity "the POCSO Act"), where, the victim is a minor girl, for ....
Can it be said that the girl was minor, below 18 years of age? In this regard, we may straight away come to the postmortem report as also the Inquest Report, which states the age of the deceased to be 20 years.
In this regard, we may straight away come to the postmortem report as also the Inquest Report, which states the age of the deceased to be 20 years. Can it be said that the girl was minor, below 18 years of age?
The essential ingredients for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. are : (a) kidnapping or abducting any women; (b) such kidnapping or abducting must be (i) with intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will; or (ii) in order that she may be forced or seduced to elicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to elicit intercourse. The offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship is complete when the minor is actually taken out from lawful guardianship. When a minor gir....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
