Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

87 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

PURUSHOTHAMANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2023 INSC 97030 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and, on appeal, the High Court suspended his sentence and released him on bail under Section 389(1) of the CrPC. When the appeal was listed for hearing, the appellant's counsel sought a four‑week adjournment, and th

AHMAD ALI QURAISHI AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2020 INSC 11230 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who are neighbours of the complainant, were involved in a long‑standing property dispute with the complainant's father. On 19 July 2016 a quarrel occurred, after which the police recorded proceedings under Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the CrPC and directed both parties to maintain peace. Six weeks later

MAHESH DAMU KHAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2024 INSC 89726 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a self‑described social worker, was accused by a woman of having a decade‑long sexual relationship with her based on false promises of marriage, leading to an FIR under Sections 376, 420, 504 and 506 IPC. The appellant sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the relationship was cons

SATAURAM MANDAVIversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

2025 INSC 89225 July 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a five‑year‑old girl under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376AB IPC, and was sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. The offence occurred on 20 May 2019, before the 2019 amendment to Section 6 of the POCSO Act, whi

SHANKAR KISANRAO KHADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 28125 April 2013Disposed off

Shankar Kisanrao Khade, aged about 52, and his wife abducted an 11‑year‑old girl with moderate intellectual disability, repeatedly raped her and later strangulated her to death. The trial court and the High Court convicted Khade under IPC sections 302, 376, 366‑A, 363 r/w s.34 and sentenced him to death, while his wife

STATE OF BIHARversusRAJBALLAV PRASAD@ RAJBALLAV PP. YADAV@ RAJBALLABH YADAV

2016 INSC 106124 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar appealed against the High Court’s order granting bail to Rajballav Prasad, an under‑trial accused charged with multiple serious offences under the IPC, POCSO Act and Immoral Traffic Act. The accused had initially evaded arrest, later surrendered, and his bail application was rejected by the trial cou

MANOJ PRATAP SINGHversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2022 INSC 65224 June 2022Dismissed

Manoj Pratap Singh was convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering a seven-and-a-half-year-old mentally and physically disabled girl. The prosecution proved its case through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including DNA matches, blood‑stained clothing, the victim’s body recovered at the appellant’s direc

JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE & ANR.versusS. HARISH & ORS.

2024 INSC 71623 September 2024Disposed off

The case arose from an FIR filed in 2020 alleging that the accused, S. Harish, had downloaded and stored child pornographic videos on his mobile phone. The investigation recovered two such videos and a chargesheet was filed under Section 15(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Section 6

BHAGWAN SINGHversusDILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 76123 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against a Rajasthan High Court order that granted bail to three accused in a gang‑rape case involving a 15‑year‑old girl. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 376D, 384, 506 IPC, Sections 3‑6 POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and Section 66 IT Act, with the complainant asserti

X ETC.versusRAJESH KUMAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 57923 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Kerala High Court erred in quashing five FIRs filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against a computer teacher accused of inappropriate conduct with female students. The allegations included holding students' hands while using a mouse, asking inva

IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS versus

2025 INSC 77822 May 2025

The Supreme Court examined a criminal appeal filed by the State of West Bengal challenging a High Court order that had set aside the conviction of an accused under the POCSO Act and IPC for raping a 14‑year‑old girl who later married him and bore a child. The Court restored the conviction for offences under Section 6 o

S.C. NARANGversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2025 INSC 68822 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

A four‑year‑old girl studying in the nursery class of Maxfort School, Delhi, alleged that a classmate sexually assaulted her. A charge‑sheet was filed under Section 21 of the POCSO Act read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act against the school principal, two teachers and the V

KUMAR GHIMIREYversusTHE STATE OF SIKKIM

2019 INSC 54922 April 2019Case Partly allowed

Kumar Ghimirey was convicted under Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and Section 341 of the IPC for attempting to sexually assault a seven‑year‑old girl, and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the Sikkim High Court altered the convictio

THIRUMOORTHYversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2024 INSC 24722 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a 17‑year‑old at the time of the 2016 offence, was identified as a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) but the charge sheet was filed directly before a Sessions Court without referral to a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The trial court convicted him under sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act and sentenced

MOHD. FIROZversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 112921 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohd. Firoz, was convicted of rape and related offences under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) and 376A of the IPC and Sections 5(i), 5(m) read with 6 of the POCSO Act, and was sentenced to life imprisonment (with the qualification ‘remainder of his natural life’) for the IPC offences and 20 years for the 3

SUMITHA PRADEEPversusARUN KUMAR C.K & ANR.

2022 INSC 113321 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, mother of a 12‑year‑old girl, alleged that her brother‑in‑law sexually assaulted the child, causing severe trauma and a decline in academic performance. An FIR was filed under IPC sections 354 and 354A and POCSO Act sections 7, 8, 9 and 11. The Sessions Court denied anticipatory bail to the accused, but

MS. EERA THROUGH DR. MANJULA KRIPPENDORFversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2017 INSC 65821 July 2017Disposed off

The appeal concerned the interpretation of Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, where the appellant, a mentally retarded adult, argued that "age" should include mental age so that she could be treated as a child. The Court examined the POCSO Act's objects and reasons, its d

SACHINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 71621 April 2025Disposed off

The appellant was convicted under the POCSO Act and IPC for penetrative sexual assault on a four‑year‑old girl and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. In his appeal against conviction, the High Court affirmed the conviction but, finding that the trial court had overlooked aggravated provisions, issued a sh

GANGADHAR NARAYAN NAYAK @ GANGADHAR HIREGUTTIversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2022 INSC 31821 March 2022Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant, an editor, published a news report disclosing the name of a 16‑year‑old girl who was a victim of sexual harassment, leading to a complaint under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The police investigated, filed a charge‑sheet and the Special Court took cognizance,

DATTATRAYA @ DATTA AMBO ROKADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2019 INSC 24721 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted of raping and murdering a five‑year‑old girl, with DNA evidence and an extra‑judicial confession establishing his guilt. The trial court sentenced him to death for murder and life imprisonment for rape, a sentence confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the death pena

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusBHUPENDRA YADAV

2023 INSC 83720 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Bhupendra Yadav, applied for a constable post in the Madhya Pradesh police and truthfully disclosed in his verification form that he had been tried for offences under IPC and the POCSO Act, but was acquitted by the trial court. The Superintendent of Police deemed him unfit on the ground of moral turpitu

IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS versus

2024 INSC 61420 August 2024Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined a criminal appeal filed by the State of West Bengal against a High Court order that set aside the conviction of a 25‑year‑old accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC for raping a 14‑year‑old girl who later gave birth to his child. The Court held t

NAVEEN @ AJAYversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2023 INSC 93619 October 2023Disposed off

The appellant, Naveen (alias Ajay), was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a three‑month‑old girl under multiple provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act. The trial was completed in fifteen days, during which a legal‑aid counsel was appointed only hours before the case began and was not given su

MOHD. FIROZversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 42919 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohd. Firoz, was convicted for the rape, sexual assault and murder of a four‑year‑old girl, under Sections 302, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), 363, 366 IPC and Sections 5(i), 5(m), 6 POCSO. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, the "last seen together" theory, DNA evidence and the appellant's own adm

P. MANIKANDANversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

2024 INSC 100718 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, P. Manikandan, was originally convicted of kidnapping and murdering a four‑year‑old girl and sentenced to death, but the Madras High Court acquitted him on the ground of reasonable doubt. The High Court, however, ordered the transfer of the case file to the CBI and directed a de‑novo reinvestigation and

ANOKHILALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 139918 December 2019Disposed off

The appellant, Anokhilal, was convicted of kidnapping, rape and murder of a nine‑year‑old girl and sentenced to death along with several other terms of imprisonment. He was represented by an Amicus Curiae appointed by the Legal Services Authority on the same day that charges were framed, leaving the counsel no time to

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIAversusSATISH AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 76218 November 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined two convictions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act – one involving a 12‑year‑old girl (Satish) and another involving a 5‑year‑old girl (Libnus). The central issue was the interpretation of Section 7, specifically whether "touch" or "physical contact" required "s

SOCIETY FOR ENLIGHTENMENT AND VOLUNTARY ACTION & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 79018 October 2024Disposed off

The Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action, an NGO, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking comprehensive guidelines for the effective implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA), including the appointment of exclusive Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs) and support mecha

P. YUVAPRAKASHversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2023 INSC 67618 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Yuvaprakash was accused of kidnapping a 17‑year‑old girl M, solemnising a marriage with her and having sexual intercourse. The victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC claimed she eloped voluntarily and was in love with the appellant. The trial court convicted him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Sectio

APARNA BHAT & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2021 INSC 19218 March 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a bail order that required the accused, who was charged with sexual harassment and related offences, to visit the complainant’s house, tie a rakhi, and give gifts as a condition of bail. The Court held that such conditions amount to judicial overreach, compel contact with the survivor, and pe

BHAGWANIversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 5218 January 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering an 11‑year‑old girl after she disappeared from a village ceremony. Circumstantial and forensic evidence, including DNA matches to the co‑accused Satish and blood‑stained clothing recovered from the appellant's cowshed, linked the appellant to the crime, wh

NAND KISHOREversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 5818 January 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a 50‑year‑old manhole worker, was convicted of raping and murdering an eight‑year‑old girl based on circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness identification and forensic findings. The trial court and High Court upheld the conviction and imposed the death penalty, deeming the crime "rarest of rare". O

SAMBHUBHAI RAISANGBHAI PADHIYARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 107217 December 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted of kidnapping, brutal sexual assault and murder of a four‑year‑old boy and sentenced to death by the trial court, a sentence confirmed by the Gujarat High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence satisfied the golden principles and whether the presumption under S

MANI PUSHPAK JOSHIversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

2019 INSC 116117 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a six‑year‑old girl filed an FIR alleging sexual assault by a teacher at her school. The child’s statements, recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, later identified two men, one wearing spectacles, as perpetrators; the latter was the school manager, not a teaching staff. The trial court, and sub

SALIL BALIversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2013 INSC 47417 July 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court heard a batch of writ petitions challenging Sections 2(k), 2(1), 15, 16, 17, 19 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, on the ground that the age limit of 18 years for juveniles was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, especially in the wa

SUNITA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR

2024 INSC 44817 May 2024Dismissed

The case arose from a POCSO trial in which the Special Judge conducted the proceedings in extreme haste, denying the accused the opportunity to consult counsel, receive documents, and present a defence, and ultimately imposing a death sentence that was set aside by the Patna High Court and a de novo trial ordered. The

JAI PRAKASHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 86116 July 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Jai Prakash, was convicted of raping and murdering a 10‑year‑old girl. Evidence included the victim’s body recovered from his hut, the last‑seen testimony of child witnesses, and DNA matches linking the appellant to the victim’s underwear and hair. The trial and High Courts affirmed conviction under IPC

IRFAN ALIAS BHAYU MEVATIversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2025 INSC 15016 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Irfan and Asif Mevati were convicted of kidnapping, rape, and related offences and sentenced to death based largely on a DNA profiling report (Exhibit‑157). The trial court and the High Court relied on the report without examining any of the scientific experts who prepared it, and the appellants were giv

LOCHAN SHRIVASversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2021 INSC 88214 December 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a 23‑year‑old resident of Chhattisgarh, was convicted of kidnapping, rape, murder and related offences after a missing‑child case led to his confession and the recovery of the victim’s body from a concealed sack. The trial court sentenced him to death for murder and to rigorous imprisonment for the other

MADAN MOHANversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2017 INSC 123314 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Madan Mohan filed an application under Section 193 CrPC seeking the summoning of Ashish Meena and Vimal Meena as accused in a case already pending against two other persons. The Sessions Judge issued non‑bailable warrants against the two respondents. They filed a revision under Section 197 CrPC in the High Court, but t

GANESANversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2020 INSC 59614 October 2020Dismissed

Ganesan was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 based solely on the testimony of a 13‑year‑old victim (PW‑3). The trial court sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment (the minimum under Section 8) and ordered Rs 1 lakh compensatio

LABHUJI AMRATJI THAKOR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2018 INSC 104913 November 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from an FIR under IPC sections 363 and 366 and POCSO Act sections 3 and 4 alleging that a 14‑year‑old girl was abducted and sexually assaulted by Natuji Thakor. The victim’s later statements mentioned three other persons – Labhuji, Shashikant and Jituji – who were present in the vehicle used for the alle

VEERENDRAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2022 INSC 56513 May 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Veerendra, a cousin of the victim’s mother, was found to have raped and strangled to death an eight‑year‑old girl, the daughter of his cousin sister. While in police custody he disclosed the location of the body, which was recovered from a dilapidated building. Post‑mortem and forensic reports confirmed

RABBU @ SARVESHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2024 INSC 72012 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rabbu @ Sarvesh, was convicted of rape, murder and related offences under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A, 302 IPC and Section 5(g)/6 POCSO, receiving the death penalty for Sections 376A and 302. The defence argued that the three dying declarations were inconsistent and that DNA evidence suggested a

MANENDRA PRASAD TIWARIversusAMIT KUMAR TIWARI & ANR.

2022 INSC 131712 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a 17‑year‑old girl who delivered a baby and then committed suicide filed an FIR alleging rape under IPC s.376 and the POCSO Act against Amit Kumar Tiwari. The Special Judge framed charges, but the accused obtained a criminal revision under CrPC s.397/401 and the High Court discharged him on the basis of a

NIPUN SAXENA & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 119211 December 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court addressed the protection of identity of victims of sexual offences, both adult and child, under IPC s.228A, CrPC s.327 and the POCSO Act. It held that no person may publish the victim's name or any detail that could lead to identification, and FIRs relating to such offences must not be placed in the p

BARUN CHANDRA THAKURversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 121411 December 2017Dismissed

The appellant, a grieving father, challenged the grant of anticipatory and interim bail to the top management executives of Ryan International School, who were accused in the murder of his 7‑year‑old son. The respondents filed bail applications in the Bombay High Court and later in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, whic

INDEPENDENT THOUGHTversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2017 INSC 103011 October 2017Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined whether Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts a husband from rape liability when his wife is aged 15‑18, violates the Constitution and conflicts with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court held that the exemption creates an arbitrar

SANJAY DUBEYversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 51911 May 2023Dismissed

The appeal concerned an Inspector, Sanjay Dubey, who was found prima facie guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to ensure DNA testing in a sensitive case involving offences under the IPC, POCSO Act, SC/ST Act and IT Act. While the High Court, hearing a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, directed departmental

SMRUTI TUKARAM BADADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

2022 INSC 3911 January 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a miscellaneous application seeking implementation of guidelines for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in criminal matters, following earlier pronouncements in Sakshi and Bandu @ Daulat. The Court examined the need for special centres to provide a barrier‑free environment for vuln

AKHTAR ALI @ ALI AKHTAR @ SHAMIM @ RAJA USTADversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 109710 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl based on circumstantial evidence, a disputed 'last seen' theory, alleged motive of lust, and DNA forensic reports. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the motive, the reliability of the last seen testimony, and the integrity of the forensic

SATISH KUMAR JAYANTI LAL DABGARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2015 INSC 19310 March 2015Dismissed

Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar was convicted under IPC sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping for marriage) and 376 (rape) for abducting and raping a girl who was under sixteen years of age. The trial court sentenced him to three years for kidnapping, five years for kidnapping for marriage and seven years rigorous

PAPPUversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2022 INSC 1649 February 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Pappu, lured a seven‑year‑old girl under the pretext of picking lychees, raped and murdered her, and later disclosed the location of her body to the police. He was convicted by the trial court and the High Court of offences under IPC sections 376, 302 and 201 and POCSO sections 5 and 6, and sentenced to

SAMPURNA BEHURAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 1259 February 2018Disposed off

Sampurna Behura filed a public‑interest writ petition under Article 32 seeking the implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Acts of 2000 and 2015, alleging that many states had failed to establish or properly staff Child Welfare Committees, Juvenile Justice Boards, Special Juvenile Polic

XversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER

2026 INSC 449 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a criminal appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to Respondent No.2, who was accused of gang‑rape, sexual assault and recording the act against a minor under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act. The FIR was lodged on 2 December 2024 and a chargesheet file

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusANURUDH & ANR

2026 INSC 479 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that granted bail to the accused Anurudh and directed that a medical board determine the victim's age in all POCSO cases. The accused was charged under IPC sections 363 and 366 and POCSO sections 7 and 8 for allegedly abducting a 12‑year‑old girl. The High

DASHWANTHversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2025 INSC 12038 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for murder, kidnapping, rape and offences under the POCSO Act based on four alleged pillars of evidence: a last‑seen‑together theory, CCTV footage, a confession‑derived disclosure statement and DNA profiling. The Supreme Court examined whether each of these pillars was

MANOJ MISHRA @ CHHOTKAUversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2021 INSC 6408 October 2021Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted for kidnapping, rape, and related offences after the father of a minor girl filed a complaint alleging that the appellant and others had enticed and assaulted his daughter. The trial court and the Allahabad High Court upheld convictions under Sections 363, 366, 376-D IPC and Section 4 of the

SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2023 INSC 6878 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The victim Husna filed FIR No.175/2022 alleging that several persons threatened her to withdraw an earlier FIR against her father‑in‑law. The appellant, Salib alias Salu, was not named in the original FIR but his name appeared for the first time in the informant’s further statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The

WARISversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2025 INSC 7128 May 2025

The appellant, Waris, was convicted under Sections 302, 201, 376(2)(i) and 376AB of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act for raping and killing his step‑daughter. During the trial, his original counsel withdrew and he could not afford a new lawyer, so the trial court appointed a legal‑aid defence counsel on th

THE SECRETARY, LUCY SEQUEIRA TRUST AND ANR.versusKAILASH RAMESH TANDEL AND ORS.

2019 INSC 4778 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a trust managing a private school, terminated the services of Assistant Teacher Respondent No.1 after an inquiry found him guilty of sexual harassment of adolescent girl students, based on two FIRs, charge‑sheets and witness testimony. The Inquiry Committee, comprising a Convenor, a nominee of the appell

NAWABUDDINversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2022 INSC 1628 February 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Nawabuddin, a neighbour, abducted a four‑year‑old girl, removed both their clothes, fondled her private parts and inserted his finger into her vagina; he was caught red‑handed and the victim later reported pain, irritation and swelling, corroborated by a medical examination. He was convicted by the trial

RAMJI LAL BAIRWA & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 8467 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from an FIR lodged under the IPC, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act against a school teacher for allegedly rubbing the breast of a 16‑year‑old girl, a sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The teacher and the victim's father later entered into a compromise, and the teacher sought quashment of the FIR un

CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHERversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

2024 INSC 3877 May 2024Disposed off

The appeal was filed by a child in conflict with law (CCL) challenging a High Court order that set aside a Juvenile Justice Board's order directing his trial as an adult in a Children’s Court. The key issues were whether the three‑month period for completing a preliminary assessment under s.14(3) of the Juvenile Justic

SASIKALA PUSHPA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2019 INSC 6367 May 2019Disposed off

The appellants, including a former Rajya Sabha MP, filed anticipatory bail applications in a sexual harassment case and submitted a vakalatnama that purportedly bore their signatures dated 17 August 2016 in Madurai, although they were abroad at that time. The Madurai High Court held the vakalatnama to be forged, deemed

NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

2018 INSC 7906 September 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court of India considered the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalized 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature' with any man, woman, or animal. The petitioners challenged the provision insofar as it criminalized consensual sexual acts between adults o

AASIF @ PASHAversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2025 INSC 9446 August 2025Disposed off

The appellant was convicted under several provisions of the IPC, the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Atrocities Act and sentenced to a maximum of four years’ rigorous imprisonment, to run concurrently. While his appeal against conviction was pending before the Allahabad High Court, he filed an application under Section 389 of

JAMNALALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 9356 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a minor rape victim appealed against the Rajasthan High Court's order that suspended the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 389 of the CrPC and released him on bail. The accused had been convicted under Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 376(3) of the IPC, receiving a 20‑year r

GYANENDRA SINGH @ RAJA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

2025 INSC 3356 March 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Gyanendra Singh, was convicted for raping his nine‑year‑old daughter, resulting in convictions under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, with a life sentence and a fine. He appealed, arguing that because the offences overlapped, the special law (POCSO) under

MAHENDER CHAWLA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 11535 December 2018Disposed off

The petitioners, who were witnesses or relatives of witnesses in the Asaram rape cases, alleged that they faced threats, attacks and even murders, and that the State failed to provide any protection, violating their right to a fair trial under Art. 21. They sought a court‑monitored witness‑protection programme and the

STATE OF U.PversusSONU KUSHWAHA

2023 INSC 6035 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that reduced the conviction of Sonu Kushwaha from aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to penetrative sexual assault under Section 4, thereby lowering his sentence. The facts involved Kushwaha inserting his penis into the m

BHAGGI @ BHAGIRATH @ NARANversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2024 INSC 825 February 2024Case Partly allowed

The petitioner was convicted under Section 376AB of the IPC for raping a seven‑year‑old girl in a temple and also under various provisions of the POCSO Act. The trial court awarded death penalty, which the High Court commuted to life imprisonment. The petitioner challenged whether the commuted life sentence required fu

RAJASEKARversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2024 INSC 965 February 2024

The appellant was convicted under sections 3(a) and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and sentenced by the Sessions Court to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs.5,000, a three‑month default sentence of simple imprisonment and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000 to the victim. The H

MUNNA PANDEYversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2023 INSC 7934 September 2023Disposed off

The appellant Munna Pandey was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a ten‑year‑old girl, based largely on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of witnesses whose statements to police were not properly confronted. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in confirming the convi

DEEPAK KUMAR SAHUversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2025 INSC 9294 August 2025Dismissed

The appellant was convicted under IPC sections 450 and 376(2) and POCSO Act section 4 for raping a 15‑year‑old girl after forcing her onto a cot in the porch of her house. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the victim's detailed testimony, corroborated by her brother, parents, and neighbours, while medical evid

BHANEI PRASAD @ RAJUversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2025 INSC 9344 August 2025Dismissed

The father was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC for repeatedly committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his ten‑year‑old daughter. The trial court, relying on the victim's testimony, corroboration from her elder sister, and forensic DNA evidence, sentenced him to life imp

KARANDEEP SHARMA @ RAZIA @ RAJUversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 4444 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted of kidnapping, rape, and murder of a minor based entirely on circumstantial evidence, a confession narrated by a police officer, and DNA/FSL reports. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the 'last seen' testimony, the admissibility of the confession under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of t

RAVISHANKAR @ BABA VISHWAKARMAversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 11163 October 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering a 13‑year‑old girl and of destroying her body. The prosecution proved the case through a chain of circumstantial evidence corroborated by DNA, medical and forensic findings, including a slipper belonging to the victim recovered from the accused. The trial

RAVI S/O ASHOK GHUMAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2019 INSC 11143 October 2019Disposed off

The appellant was found with a two‑year‑old girl under his bed after the child went missing; medical, eye‑witness, circumstantial and Y‑STR DNA evidence established that he kidnapped, raped (vaginal and unnatural intercourse) and murdered the child. The trial court and High Court convicted him under IPC sections 302, 3

KAUSHAL KISHORversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2023 INSC 43 January 2023Reference answered

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016 and Special Leave Petition (Diary) No. 34629 of 2017 were referred to a Constitution Bench to answer five questions concerning the scope of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the enforceability of fundamental rights against non-State actors. The petitions arose from st

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.versusDR. MAROTI S/O KASHINATH PIMPALKAR

2022 INSC 11522 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal appeal against the quashing of FIR No.185/2019 and the charge‑sheet against Dr. Maroti, a medical practitioner, who was alleged to have failed to report sexual assaults on minor tribal girls in a hostel as required under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) A

SHATRUGHNA BABAN MESHRAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2020 INSC 6242 November 2020Case Partly allowed

A two‑and‑a‑half‑year‑old girl was abducted, brutally raped and murdered by her maternal uncle, Shatrughna Baban Meshram. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 376(1), 376(2)(f,i,m) and 376A of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, imposing death sentences on the charges of murder and rape‑resul

XYZversusABHISHEIK & ANR

2022 INSC 9052 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant XYZ, a minor, alleged that she was gang‑raped by the first respondent ABHISHEIK and others. The FIR was lodged on 24 July 2015. The accused claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence and produced a matriculation certificate, a school birth register entry and a municipal birth certificate, all of

SUSHIL KUMAR TIWARIversusHARE RAM SAH & ORS.

2025 INSC 10611 September 2025Disposed off

The case involved a minor girl who became pregnant after being allegedly raped separately by two accused, Hare Ram Sah and Manish Tiwari, in 2016. The trial court convicted them under IPC s.376(2) and POCSO §§4,6, imposing rigorous life imprisonment, but the High Court acquitted them, holding that the prosecution faile

DR. SR. TESSY JOSE AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KERALA

2018 INSC 6671 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The victim, a minor at the time of rape, became pregnant and delivered a child at a hospital where three staff members – a gynecologist, a pediatrician and a hospital administrator – were later charged under Sections 19(1) and 21(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and Sections 201 and 34

ALAKH ALOK SRIVASTAVAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 4331 May 2018Disposed off

Alakh Alok Srivastava filed a writ petition seeking medical care and compensation for an eight‑month‑old girl who was a victim of an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and also sought directions for speedy disposal of POCSO cases across the country. The Court ordered that the chi

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search