New Delhi: Strongly condemning the sweeping observations made by the Supreme Court, Calcutta High Courtincluding advising Teenage Girls for their control Sexual Desires Instead of succumbing to “two minutes of bliss” when making decisions Criminal AppealsThe Supreme Court On Tuesday, he urged judges to decide cases on the basis of law and facts and not indulge in preaching or expressing personal opinions while delivering verdicts.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan not only set aside the high court’s observation but also its 2018 decision to acquit an accused who was in a physical relationship with a 14-year-old minor girl and from whom a child was born.
The apex court held him guilty under the POCSO Act and said it would decide on the quantum of sentence. Also, it directed the West Bengal government to form a committee of three experts, including a clinical psychologist and a social scientist, who will interact with the girl and help her decide whether she wants to live with the accused or avail the state facilities.
Referring to various observations made by the High Court, including creating a non-existent category of “romantic relationships” in rape cases and suggesting amendment in the law to decriminalise consensual sexual acts between juveniles above the age of 16, the court said the observations of the High Court were shocking.
“The judgment of the court cannot contain the personal opinion of the judge on various subjects. Similarly, advisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the court by advising the parties or by giving advice in general. The judge has to decide the matter, not preach. The judgment cannot contain irrelevant and unnecessary material. The judgment should be in simple language and should not be too voluminous. Brevity is the hallmark of a quality judgment. We must remember that the judgment is neither a thesis nor a piece of literature. However, we find that the impugned judgment contains the personal opinion of the judge, advice to the younger generation and advice to the legislature,” the court said.
The bench acknowledged that the relationship was consensual as there was no evidence of the victim being lured and she had left the house on her own, but held that offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sub-sections (2)(n) and (3) of Section 376 of the IPC were made out. Whether such an offence arises out of a romantic relationship is irrelevant, it said. The court also expressed concern over child welfare committees in states not doing their job in reaching out to children in need of care and protection.
“It is the responsibility of the State to take care of the helpless victims of such heinous crimes. We have repeatedly held that the right to live a dignified life is an integral part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution…The minor child, who is a victim of the offences under the POCSO Act, is also deprived of the fundamental right to live a dignified and healthy life. Same is the case with the child born to the victim as a result of the crime… Therefore, immediately after coming to know about the heinous crime under the POCSO Act, the State, its agencies and instrumentalities must come forward and provide all possible assistance to the victim children, enabling them to lead a dignified life,” the bench said.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan not only set aside the high court’s observation but also its 2018 decision to acquit an accused who was in a physical relationship with a 14-year-old minor girl and from whom a child was born.
The apex court held him guilty under the POCSO Act and said it would decide on the quantum of sentence. Also, it directed the West Bengal government to form a committee of three experts, including a clinical psychologist and a social scientist, who will interact with the girl and help her decide whether she wants to live with the accused or avail the state facilities.
Referring to various observations made by the High Court, including creating a non-existent category of “romantic relationships” in rape cases and suggesting amendment in the law to decriminalise consensual sexual acts between juveniles above the age of 16, the court said the observations of the High Court were shocking.
“The judgment of the court cannot contain the personal opinion of the judge on various subjects. Similarly, advisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the court by advising the parties or by giving advice in general. The judge has to decide the matter, not preach. The judgment cannot contain irrelevant and unnecessary material. The judgment should be in simple language and should not be too voluminous. Brevity is the hallmark of a quality judgment. We must remember that the judgment is neither a thesis nor a piece of literature. However, we find that the impugned judgment contains the personal opinion of the judge, advice to the younger generation and advice to the legislature,” the court said.
The bench acknowledged that the relationship was consensual as there was no evidence of the victim being lured and she had left the house on her own, but held that offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sub-sections (2)(n) and (3) of Section 376 of the IPC were made out. Whether such an offence arises out of a romantic relationship is irrelevant, it said. The court also expressed concern over child welfare committees in states not doing their job in reaching out to children in need of care and protection.
“It is the responsibility of the State to take care of the helpless victims of such heinous crimes. We have repeatedly held that the right to live a dignified life is an integral part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution…The minor child, who is a victim of the offences under the POCSO Act, is also deprived of the fundamental right to live a dignified and healthy life. Same is the case with the child born to the victim as a result of the crime… Therefore, immediately after coming to know about the heinous crime under the POCSO Act, the State, its agencies and instrumentalities must come forward and provide all possible assistance to the victim children, enabling them to lead a dignified life,” the bench said.
