IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS versus

IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS versus

The Court restored the conviction of the accused under sub-sections (2)(n) and (3) of Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act but, after considering the Committee reports, the victim's expressed wishes, the failure of State machinery and the best interests of the victim and her child, exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to direct that although the accused stands convicted he shall not undergo imprisonment; instead the State is directed to implement specified rehabilitation, shelter and educational support measures and to file periodic compliance reports.

Parties
Appellant: State of West Bengal; Respondents: Respondents; Amicus Curiae: Ms. Madhavi Divan; Amicus Curiae: Ms. Liz Mathew
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Suo Motu Writ Petition (civil) No. 3 of 2023; Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2024 / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed; High Court judgment set aside to the extent of convictions which were restored; accused convicted but court under Article 142 ordered that he will not undergo sentence
Legal Topics
Sentencing Under POCSO and IPC, Rehabilitation of Victim and Child, Adolescent Wellbeing and Comprehensive Sexuality Education, Exercise of Article 142 Powers
Criminal Law Child Welfare and Protection Constitutional Law Family Law Sentencing Under POCSO and IPC Rehabilitation of Victim and Child Adolescent Wellbeing and Comprehensive Sexuality Education Exercise of Article 142 Powers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of West Bengal

Appellant

Respondents

Respondents

Ms. Madhavi Divan

Amicus Curiae

Ms. Liz Mathew

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Suo Motu Writ Petition (civil) No. 3 of 2023; Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2024 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused convicted under s.6 of the POCSO Act and ss.376(2)(n) and 376(3) IPC should undergo imprisonment despite the victim's expressed desire to continue cohabitation and the best interests of the child
  2. 2 What rehabilitation, shelter and educational support the State must provide to the victim and her child under POCSO Act and the JJ Act
  3. 3 Whether this Court can exercise its power under Article 142 to refrain from sentencing the convicted accused and provide remedial measures instead

Ratio Decidendi

The Court restored the conviction of the accused under sub-sections (2)(n) and (3) of Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act but, after considering the Committee reports, the victim's expressed wishes, the failure of State machinery and the best interests of the victim and her child, exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to direct that although the accused stands convicted he shall not undergo imprisonment; instead the State is directed to implement specified rehabilitation, shelter and educational support measures and to file periodic compliance reports.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed; High Court judgment set aside to the extent of convictions which were restored; accused convicted but court under Article 142 ordered that he will not undergo sentence

Orders

  • Set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Special Court to the extent of conviction under sub-sections (2)(n) and (3) of Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act
  • Confirm acquittal of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC