Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
For example, ["SALEEM S/O HUSENSAB KARNOOR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS - Karnataka"] notes: The offence under Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act is not made out against the petitioners, implying that certain IPC sections like 109 are also not applicable in the context of child protection laws.
Main points regarding legal interpretation:
The references highlight that Section 109 IPC is generally excluded from POCSO cases, focusing instead on the detailed offences under the POCSO Act itself.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Rohit VS State of Maharashatra - Bombay"]- ["SALEEM S/O HUSENSAB KARNOOR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS - Karnataka"]- ["SALEEM S/O HUSENSAB KARNOOR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS - Karnataka"]
In the realm of child protection laws in India, questions often arise about the interplay between general criminal provisions like those in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and specialized statutes such as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. A common query is: 109 is not applicable in sec 4 pocso act. This statement reflects a critical legal debate—whether Section 109 of the IPC, which deals with abetment of an offence, can be invoked alongside Section 4 of the POCSO Act, particularly in cases of mere failure to prevent a sexual assault on a minor.
This blog post delves into judicial interpretations, Supreme Court precedents, and recent case trends to clarify this issue. While courts have consistently held that passive inaction does not constitute abetment, understanding the nuances is vital for legal practitioners, accused persons, and those navigating POCSO cases. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice.
Section 109 IPC addresses the punishment for abetment when the abetted act is committed in consequence thereof. It states:
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Shyam Kumar vs State (NCT of Delhi) - Delhi (2017)
Crucially, mere failure to prevent the commission of an offence is not by itself an abetment. Abetment requires active instigation, conspiracy, or aiding Shyam Kumar vs State (NCT of Delhi) - Delhi (2017).
Section 4 of the POCSO Act punishes penetrative sexual assault on children under 18. Abetment under POCSO is governed by Section 16, which mirrors IPC Section 107, defining it as instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. Explanation III to Section 16 expands this to include employing, harboring, or transporting a child using threats or coercion Shyam Kumar VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 723.
However, courts emphasize that even under POCSO, omission alone does not trigger liability.
In Kulwant Singh alias Kulbansh Singh v. State of Bihar (2007) 15 SCC 670, the Supreme Court clarified:
Mere failure to prevent the commission of an offence is not by itself an abetment of that offence. Shyam Kumar vs State (NCT of Delhi) - Delhi (2017)
The Court stressed that abetment demands a direct link through active instigation or aid, not passive negligence. If a person merely fails to intervene during a POCSO offence, Section 109 IPC cannot be applied without evidence of facilitation Shyam Kumar vs State (NCT of Delhi) - Delhi (2017).
Applying this to POCSO, courts have quashed charges where accusations rested solely on inaction. For instance, in cases involving failure to stop a sexual offence against a minor, the absence of direct instigation meant Section 16 POCSO (abetment) could not stand Shyam Kumar VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 723.
High Court judgments reinforce this principle, often dismissing Section 109 IPC charges in POCSO matters when evidence shows only presence or omission.
In a Karnataka High Court case, charges under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 109 IPC r/w 149, and Sections 4, 6, 17 POCSO were examined. The court noted that POCSO ingredients must be attractively met, implying abetment requires more than passive role SALEEM S/O HUSENSAB KARNOOR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Another Karnataka ruling involved Sections 366, 376, 448, 506, 109, 114, 34 IPC and Sections 4, 6, 17 POCSO. The facts disclosed prosecution for abetment, but scrutiny focused on active involvement ESHA @ ELIGANURU VEERESHA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.
In Suman Shyam v. State of Assam, the court acquitted due to no direct evidence of instigation or aid, holding omission alone insufficient BIJU SAIKIA SIVASAGAR, ASSAM VS STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM - 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 205.
A case under Sections 363, 376(2)(N), 109, 114 IPC and Sections 4, 6, 17 POCSO highlighted that petitioner offences required proof beyond mere association RAJU S/O JAYAPPA ARIKATTI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28440.
These cases illustrate courts' cautious approach: mere presence, caretaking, or failure to assist escape does not imply abetment unless active facilitation exists Shyam Kumar VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 723.
To clarify:
| Factor | Sufficient for Abetment? | Judicial Basis ||--------|---------------------------|---------------|| Failure to prevent | No | Kulwant Singh case Shyam Kumar vs State (NCT of Delhi) - Delhi (2017) || Instigation/Conspiracy | Yes | Section 16 POCSO Shyam Kumar VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 723 || Harboring with threats | Yes (if coercive) | Explanation III, Sec 16 Shyam Kumar VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 723 || Mere association | No | Suman Shyam BIJU SAIKIA SIVASAGAR, ASSAM VS STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM - 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 205 |
Section 4 POCSO targets the principal offender in penetrative assault. Charging abetment (IPC 109 or POCSO 16) against others requires concrete evidence. Recent trends show:
Courts quash proceedings if abetment lacks basis, preventing misuse of process.
The jurisprudence protects against vicarious liability in sensitive POCSO matters. While POCSO's Explanation III broadens aiding (e.g., transporting under duress), it still demands concrete acts, not omission Shyam Kumar VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 723.
In acquittal appeals like one under 323/328/346/363/376/109/120-B IPC and Section 4 POCSO, courts upheld acquittals due to unreliable evidence and lack of medical corroboration, underscoring proof burdens.
Judicial consensus affirms: Section 109 IPC is not applicable under Section 4 POCSO merely for failure to prevent an offence. Liability demands active involvement—instigation, conspiracy, or aid. Passive conduct falls short, as reiterated in Supreme Court and High Court rulings.
Key Takeaways:- Prove active role for abetment charges Shyam Kumar vs State (NCT of Delhi) - Delhi (2017).- Omission ≠ Abetment; distinguish from facilitation Shyam Kumar VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 723.- Courts scrutinize evidence rigorously in POCSO cases BIJU SAIKIA SIVASAGAR, ASSAM VS STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM - 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 205.
For those facing such charges, consult a legal expert promptly. This analysis draws from established precedents and aims to inform, not advise specifically.
Sources Cited: Shyam Kumar vs State (NCT of Delhi) - Delhi (2017)Shyam Kumar VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 723BIJU SAIKIA SIVASAGAR, ASSAM VS STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM - 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 205SALEEM S/O HUSENSAB KARNOOR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORSESHA @ ELIGANURU VEERESHA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKARAJU S/O JAYAPPA ARIKATTI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28440SHRIDHAR S/O NINGAPPA SARAVAND vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27927BHARATHI Vs THE STATE REP BY
#POCSOAct, #IPCSection109, #AbetmentLaw
According to him, in several cases under the POCSO Act, the Courts and the Police have overlooked or failed to give effect to the mandate of Sec. 40 of the POCSO Act read with Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules. ... The Court found that this would be in consonance with the object of Sec. 40 of the POCSO Act read with Rules 4(13) and 4(15) of the POCSO Rules. 20. ... #HL....
Act are not applicable. ... .363, 366, 376(2)(n), 109, R/W 149 OF IPC, AND U/SEC.3(1)(W), 3(2)(V-A), 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989, AND U/SEC.6, 12, 17 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE SESSIONS ... 2012 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act'). ... Therefore, ingredients of provision of POCSO Act are attra....
AND SEC. 4, 6 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND SEC. 9 AND 10 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006 & ETC. ... The above said facts and circumstances disclose that the accused has been prosecuted for the offences punishable u/S 366, 376, 448, 506, 109, 114, 34 of IPC; Sec.4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 and 10 of POCSO Act#HL....
OFFENCES 363, 376(2)(N), 109, 114 OF IPC AND SEC. 4, 6, 17 POCSO ACT 2012 AND ALSO SEC.3 (2) (VA), SC AND ST ACT 2015. ... It was submitted, offences alleged against petitioner were under Sections 363, 376(2) (n), 109 and 114 of IPC read with Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of PCM Act and also Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act, ....
Act is not applicable against them. ... The offence under Sec tion 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act is not made out against the petitioners. ... Act. ... /34 of the I.P.C., Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3 of th e S.C. ... do not want to pursue the application as there is no allegation against them.
SC NO. 85/2023, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 363, 366, 109 AND 376(2)(N) R/W. 34 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 4, 6 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT 2012. ... Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’ for short) by accused no.1 (petitioner). ... Insofar as applications for bail involving offences under POCSO Act, Hon’bl....
OF IPC R/W SECS.6, 17 OF POCSO ACT AND U/SECS.10 & 11 OF CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT ACT. ... Sec. 6, 17 of POCSO Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - Police. ... Sec. 6, 17 of POCSO Act on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety possessing immovable property for the like sum to the satisfaction....
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sec.354, 354A(2), 365, 363 r/w 109 I.P.C. r/w Sec.8, 10, 12 r/w Sec.17 of POCSO Act, 2021, in ... 4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above observations. ... TO 1 THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE (POCSO ACT) CHENGALPATTU 2 THE STATE REP BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTEND....
.363, 366(A), 376(2)(n), 109, 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC and U/Sec.4, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act 2012, pending on the file of II Addl. ... , 506 R/w 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 7, 11, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012. ... Therefore, she is not a child within the meaning of definition provided under the POCSO Act. 8. ... , 506 of IPC are also included in the charge sheet along w....
(POCSO) NO.09/2019 (HANUMASAGAR P.S.CRIME NO.21/2019) PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 KOPPAL FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC.376, 109 OF IPC, U/SEC.6 & 17 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND U/SEC.9 & ... of IPC, Sections 6, 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 9 & 11 of Child Marriage Restraint Act (Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006). ... ; 11 OF CHILD MARRIAGE RESTR....
323/328/346/376/109/120B IPC, 4 POCSO Act and 3/4/5 ITP Further investigation has been carried out by Inspector/SHO. After discussing the case with senior police officers, offences punishable u/s
Sec.81 of the Act 9 of 2007 is not applicable as the proceedings were not initiated and pending when the old Act was repealed. The entire complaint is misconceived and such prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law.
However the question is whether Sec. 42 of the Act was applicable or not in the facts of the case. State of Gujarat (2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 373 = RLW 2000(2) SC 264).
Sec. 107 and Sec. 109 of the Act are the exemptions to the above said provision of Sec. 105. It is relevant to mention here Sec. 105 deals with legacy which lapses, if legatee does not survive the testator. 12. Sec. 109 of the Act deals with another exception to the rule in Sec. 105 of the Act. We have already extracted the said provision for proper appreciation.
( 10 ) IT appears from Sec. 7 (1) (c) that the Tribunal, in the impugned, order found that the decision of the Mamlatdar was rendered in an application of respondent No. 1-tenant which was under Sec. 7 (1) (c ). It is also found that Sec. 8 of the said Act is not applicable. Sec. 8 empowers the Collector to determine the claim of holders of incumbrances. After the amendment was made in 1965, a provision is also made for appeal and revision but the dispute between the parties in the present case is prior to the date of the amendment.
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
