The Apex Court went further holding that the name of the victim shall not be published even in the publication of the judgments of the courts.
The Supreme Court issued directions to the State Government for eradicating child prostitution and setting up rehabilitative homes for those children.
We would direct every State Government to give effect to this principle or norm laid down by us in so far as any future cases are concerned, but so far as concerns pending cases relating to offences punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years, we would direct every State Government to complete the investigation within a period of 3 months from today if the investigation has not already resulted in filing of charge-sheet and if a charge-sheet has been filed, the trial shall be completed within a period of 6 months from today and if it is not, the prosecution shall be quashed.
The victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.
Restoration of the conviction and sentence of six-year rigorous imprisonment imposed on two British nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a paedophilia case
It carves out the exception of interim custody, in contradistinction of guardianship, and then specifies that custody should be given to the mother so long as the child is below five years in age.
The court said that the Act placed the onus on father to prove that it was not in the welfare of the infant child to be placed in the custody of mother and HC order virtually nullifies the spirit of the enactment.
In this case, the Supreme Court was highly critical of the acquittal of persons accused of gang-raping a 16 year old girl.
It had refused to rely on her statement. The Supreme Court observed that the appreciation of evidence by the trial court was “not only unreasonable but perverse”.
Sakshi an NGO filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that all forms of penetration be included within “sexual intercourse” in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.
Raises certain questions which are fundamental to the understanding and implementation of the objects for which the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000).
The Delhi High Court laid down guidelines with a view to ensure sensitivity of the criminal justice system towards victims of child sexual abuse. The guidelines addressed the responsibilities of the police, manner in which medical examination should be conducted, recording of statement by the magistrate, and the procedure before the trial court.
The court observed that women and children need to be protected against trafficking. The court also examined the issues of minors being charged under the ITPA and being produced before the JJB as a juvenile in conflict with law instead of being treated as a child in need of care and protection and legal representation of the minors by the advocate for the traffickers as well.
The Supreme Court in this case considered the issue of development of children who are in jail with their mothers, either as undertrial prisoners or convicts.
It was further suggested that arrest of women suspects be made only by lady police
The Supreme Court in this case issued Guidelines to prevent female foeticide.
A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that sexual intercourse with minor (below 18 years) wife is rape.
Supreme Court held that;
i. Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
Mandatory registration of FIR in cases of dowry harassment.
The Supreme Court upheld a High Court judgment that allowed legal heirs of the complainant to prosecute the petition before the High Court.