🌟 In Re Alarming Rise In The Number Of Reported Child Rape Incidents 2019

The Bench comprising Chief Justice, Justice Deepak Gupta & Justice Aniruddha Bose on July 25, 2019 issued the following directions to the Union of India:

(i) In each district of the country, if there are more than 100 cases under the POCSO Act, an exclusive/designated special Court will be set up, which will try no other offence except those under the POCSO Act.

(ii) Such Courts will be set up under a Central scheme and will be funded by the Central Government, which fund will not only take care of the appointment of the Presiding Officer, but also the appointments of support persons, Special Public Prosecutors, Court staff and infrastructure including creation of child- friendly environment and vulnerable witness Court rooms, etc.

(iii) While drawing up the panel(s) of support persons in each district which should not exceed a reasonable number keeping in mind the total number of cases to be tried by the special Court to be set up in each district, care should be taken to appoint persons who are dedicated to the cause and apart from academic qualifications are oriented towards child rights; are sensitive to the needs of a child and are otherwise child friendly. The same standards would also apply in the matter of appointment of Special Public Prosecutors.

(iv) The following suggestions of the learned Amicus Curiae shall also be implemented by the Ministry of Women and Child Development through such agency as may be considered appropriate:-

“(e) A short clip intended to spread an awareness of the subject in general, namely, prevention of child abuse and prosecution of crimes against children, should necessarily be screened in every movie hall and could also be transmitted by various television channels at regular intervals. A child helpline number should also be displayed not only in such clips but also at various other prominent places, in schools and other public places.

#Pocso_landmark_judgment
@CurrentLegalGK

🌟 State Vs. Freddy Peats and Others 1996

⚡The children are at the risk of sexual exploitation by caregivers was first highlighted in this case

Freddy Peats ran an orphanage called ‘Gurukul Orphamily’ in Colva, Goa. Between 1980 and 1991, 27 shelter boys were subjected to various perverse sexual activities. Peats would not just abuse them himself but also send the boys along with other foreigners for sex. He would inject the testicles of the boys with steroids and photograph them in an obscene manner. Finally, the matter came to light in 1991. The trail was conducted in camera for the sake of victim boy’s anonymity and dignity. The prosecution proved that Peats had kept the boys in wrongful confinement and committed unnatural offences. It was also proved that he received money in lieu of allowing others to abuse the boys. The judgement was delivered by the additional sessions judge at Margoa in 1996 and the same was upheld by the Bombay Court, Goa Bench in 2000.

The judgement stated: “After having personally heard the victim boys in this court and accessed the merits backing the testimony which is overwhelming on record with absolute corroboration almost verbatim inter se and almost illustrated in each one of those photographs coupled with various admissions and the scheming silence of accused no.1, I am of the unshakable belief that accused no. 1 deserved no leniency at all of any nature whatsoever. Quantum of sentence shall definitely be proportionate to the gravity of the crime.” In 2005, at the age of 81, Freddy Peats passed away while still in custody.


#Pocso_landmark_judgment

@CurrentLegalGK

🌟 Bhupen Kalita Vs State of Assam 2020

Where the Hon’ble High Court was dealing with statutory presumption under Sections 29 & 30 of POCSO Act, it was observed that prosecution need to establish the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt.

@CurrentLegalGK

2023 India Legal

Read the starting 35 Pages and some other relvant topics mentioned thereafter.

🎉🥳 Happy New Year 🕛🎊

🌟 पृथ्वीं धर्मं धृतम् - Which Means धर्मं is that which holds life on earth 🌍

Earth ne 2023 ka round complete karliya ab 2024 ki baari is revolution me kuch revolutionary hi karna hai. So life me “धर्मं " ko follow kijiye and Dekhiye Kaise sub sahi hota hai ✍️👨‍⚖️

I hope you all will work deliberately to achieve your goals in this Year 2024

🌄Daily habits pe focus karna in 366 days me.



Future Updates-
https://youtube.com/@NaturalJustice?feature=shared

Government appoints Arvind Panagariya as sixteenth Finance Commission chief - The Hindu
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/government-appoints-arvind-panagariya-as-sixteenth-finance-commission-chief/article67692524.ece

🌟✍️ UOI v. Sriharan, 2016

In this case, interpreting Section 432(7) of the CrPC, the constitution bench held that even if an offence is committed in State A and the trial takes place and the sentence is passed in State B, it is the latter State which shall be the appropriate government.  

#Bilkis_Bano
@CurrentLegalGK

👨‍⚖️ 2023 Landmark Judgments Brief

🌟 Vivek Narayan Shamra v. UOI
🌟 S kaushal kishore v. State of
Uttar Pradesh
🌟 Anoop Baranwal v. UOI
🌟 UOI v. M/S Union Carbide
corporation
🌟 Government of NCT Delhi v. UOI
🌟 Subhash desai v. Principle
Secretary, governor of
Maharashtra
🌟 Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh
ishwarbhai Modi
🌟 Supriyo @ supriya chakraborty
v. UOI
🌟 Dr. Balram dingh v. UOI (Manual scavenging)
🌟 In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India.

@CurrentLegalGK

Explanation to the Quiz on Gang Rape

✓Option 1 ruled out due to–
The expression "in furtherance of their common intention" as appearing in the Explanation to Section 376(2) relates to intention to commit rape. A woman cannot be said to have an intention to commit rape. Therefore, the counsel for the appellant is right in her submission that the appellant cannot be prosecuted for alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g).

✓Option 2 Correct
Unlike man, a woman can also be held guilty of sexual offences. A woman can also be held guilty of gang rape if she has facilitated the act of rape with a group of person,"

Another reasoning could be the 2013 criminal law Amendment Act which susbtituted 375(1)(g) and 376D of IPC.


@CurrentLegalGK