The Delhi High Court emphasized that the POCSO Act is applicable to all genders and stated that it would be insensitive to claim that the act is being misused.

Key words :- Delhi High Court , POCSO ACT , Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma .

 The Court expressed that while any law has the potential for misuse, this should not deter the legislature from creating such laws or the judiciary from enforcing them.

In a recent case [Rakesh v State of NCT of Delhi & Anr], the Delhi High Court noted that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is inclusive of all genders. The court emphasized that it is inappropriate and misleading to suggest misuse of the legislation. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma highlighted that while all laws, regardless of their gender focus, can be misused, it’s important for the legislature to continue enacting such laws and for the judiciary to uphold and enforce them.

Justice Sharma presided over a case involving a man accused of sexually assaulting a seven-year-old girl in 2016. The accused, Rakesh, faced charges under the POCSO Act, along with Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Rakesh appealed to the High Court after his application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) was rejected by the trial court. He sought the re-examination of the survivor and her mother, asserting that their earlier cross-examination had been merely formal and not substantive.

Furthermore, upon careful examination of the case, the Court acknowledged that a span of six years has elapsed since the prosecutor and her mother provided their testimonies in front of the trial court.

The Court additionally observed that the child-victim had been compelled to revisit the distressing memory of the heinous sexual assault she endured at the delicate age of seven. This painful recollection occurred during the initial assault, when she gave her statement to the police, during the Section 164 Cr.PC statement before the Magistrate, and once again during her testimony before the trial court.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the plea. Advocate Hitesh Thakur represented the petitioner, Rakesh. The state was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Manoj Pant.

Written by :- RATNESH TEMBE, College :- Law Department , PIMR , Indore ,An intern under LEGAL VIDHIYA.

Admin