As per Exception 2 to Section 375 (“the Exception”), Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), any man who indulges in sexual activity with his own wife (the wife not being under eighteen years of age) will not be constituted as an offence of rape.
Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala, the additional judge of the Bombay High Court, whose ruling that skin-to-skin contact was necessary to invoke provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in a case of the sexual assault of a minor had sparked an uproar, and was later rescinded by the Supreme Court, will not be made a permanent judge.
The Allahabad High Court has reduced the jail sentence of a man convicted for sexually assaulting a child by controversially observing that oral sex does not fall within the category of “aggravated sexual assault” under POCSO.
As per a report of Praja Foundation, 99% of cases registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in 2020 are pending trial. The delay is being attributed to factors like setting up of virtual courts during the pandemic and the unorganised police-court mechanism. There is, therefore, a need to understand the various agencies involved in the functioning of the POCSO Act and the issues and challenges faced by special courts due to which pendency has taken place.
Vikas has challenged the Delhi High Court order wherein his regular bail was dismissed. The petitioner is charged for the offence under sections 376B, 342 IPC and section 6 read with section 5(m) of the POCSO Act.
The Delhi High Court has increased the sum of compensation to Rs one lakh in a case of child abuse. The single-judge bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani passed the directions in a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner