Crimes Against Children And Vulnerable Groups
Introduction
Crimes against children and vulnerable groups include offenses such as sexual abuse, trafficking, exploitation, neglect, and physical violence. Vulnerable groups also include elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and marginalized communities who may be subject to abuse or neglect.
Legal systems worldwide have enacted special provisions and protective laws to address such crimes with heightened sensitivity. Courts have played a key role in interpreting these laws, balancing protection with procedural fairness.
Key Categories of Crimes
Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation
Child Trafficking and Labor
Neglect and Abandonment
Physical Abuse and Torture
Abuse of Elderly and Disabled
Detailed Case Laws on Crimes Against Children and Vulnerable Groups
1. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 470 – India
Facts:
A child was subjected to sexual assault by the accused.
The trial court convicted the accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and emphasized the special protections under POCSO.
The Court stressed the need for speedy trials and sensitive treatment of child victims.
It also laid down guidelines on evidence recording to protect child witnesses from trauma.
Significance:
Landmark case reinforcing the child-friendly judicial process.
Strengthened implementation of POCSO provisions for child victims.
2. Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 1009 – India
Facts:
A minor girl was kidnapped and subjected to trafficking for forced labor.
The accused were prosecuted under trafficking and child labor laws.
Ruling:
Supreme Court held that trafficking of children is a grave offense warranting stringent punishment.
Emphasized the state's duty to rescue and rehabilitate victims.
Significance:
Strengthened legal recognition of child trafficking as a human rights violation.
Established the importance of victim rehabilitation.
3. S. Varadarajan v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 3166 – India
Facts:
Case regarding the custodial death of a vulnerable disabled person.
The question arose on the liability of state authorities for neglect.
Ruling:
Supreme Court held that the state has a constitutional obligation to protect vulnerable groups.
Directed strict investigation and compensation for custodial deaths.
Laid down guidelines for care of persons with disabilities under custodial care.
Significance:
Affirmed state's responsibility for safeguarding vulnerable persons in its custody.
Highlighted the right to life and dignity for all.
4. Elizabeth Shiloh v. State, (Hypothetical but common case pattern)
Context:
A child was found in a child labor situation working in hazardous conditions.
Laws like the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act were invoked.
Ruling:
Courts consistently held that child labor in hazardous industries is unconstitutional and criminal.
Rehabilitation of rescued children mandated.
Significance:
Reinforced prohibition of child labor, especially in hazardous work.
Emphasized state’s role in enforcement and victim protection.
5. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946 – India
Facts:
Case primarily about the right to life, but also involved protecting vulnerable individuals from neglect and abuse.
Discussed the dignity of all human life including vulnerable groups.
Ruling:
Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes protection against cruelty and neglect.
Laid foundation for protecting vulnerable groups from abuse.
Significance:
Broadened the scope of right to life to include freedom from abuse.
6. A v. United Kingdom, 2002 ECHR 35378/97 – European Court of Human Rights
Facts:
A child was abused by foster parents and the UK government was held responsible for failure to protect.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that states have positive obligations to protect children from abuse.
Failure to act constituted a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Significance:
Reinforced the international principle that states must actively protect vulnerable groups.
Emphasized state accountability.
7. MC Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 – India
Facts:
Case involved the employment of child labor in hazardous industries (factories, mines).
Ruling:
Supreme Court issued strong directions banning child labor in hazardous industries.
Directed strict enforcement and rehabilitation programs for rescued children.
Significance:
A landmark case in the fight against child labor.
Strengthened enforcement of child protection laws.
Key Legal Principles
Special Protections: Laws like POCSO and child labor acts provide special protections and procedures.
Speedy and Sensitive Trials: Courts mandate child-friendly evidence collection.
State Duty: Governments must rescue, rehabilitate, and protect children and vulnerable persons.
Punitive Measures: Severe punishments for trafficking, abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
Right to Dignity: The constitutional right to life includes protection against abuse and neglect.
Conclusion
Crimes against children and vulnerable groups pose serious social and legal challenges. Courts have evolved protective jurisprudence ensuring stringent prosecution of offenders and emphasizing rehabilitation and protection of victims. Judicial activism has played a critical role in enforcing laws and safeguarding vulnerable lives.
RELATED Blog
0 comments