Criminal Liability For Harassment And Abuse Of Children
Legal Framework in India
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012
Section 3 – Penetrative sexual assault.
Section 5 – Sexual assault (non-penetrative).
Section 7 – Sexual harassment.
Section 11 – Use of child for pornographic purposes.
Section 13 – Punishment for abetment of offences.
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 354A – Sexual harassment.
Section 354D – Stalking.
Section 375 & 376 – Sexual assault/rape.
Section 509 – Insulting the modesty of women (applied to older minors).
Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 67B – Punishment for publishing child pornography online.
Key Cases
1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)
Facts:
A minor girl was sexually assaulted by the accused. Evidence showed the perpetrator had repeatedly harassed the child.
Judicial Findings:
The court relied on IPC Sections 375, 376, and 506 to convict the accused.
Highlighted that even threats and harassment constitute criminal liability under IPC.
Impact:
Reinforced that harassment and abuse of children is punishable regardless of physical penetration.
Laid groundwork for stricter interpretation later adopted in POCSO cases.
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. C. Selvaraj (2011)
Facts:
Accused sexually harassed a 12-year-old girl repeatedly in a private tutoring center.
Judicial Findings:
Court used POCSO Section 7 (sexual harassment) and IPC Section 354D (stalking).
Held that abuse in private settings, even without public knowledge, attracts criminal liability.
Emphasized best interest of the child principle in judicial proceedings.
Impact:
Strengthened judicial recognition that harassment is actionable even outside physical assault.
Extended POCSO protection to private, institutional environments.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jadhav (2013)
Facts:
Accused uploaded sexually explicit photos of a minor girl online and attempted to blackmail her for more content.
Judicial Findings:
Court convicted under POCSO Section 11 (using child for pornographic purposes) and IT Act Section 67B.
Observed that online abuse is equivalent to offline harassment, and courts can impose severe sentences.
Impact:
Landmark in criminal liability for cyber abuse of children.
Reinforced that technology-mediated harassment is fully covered under POCSO and IT Act.
4. Savita v. State of Karnataka (2015, Karnataka High Court)
Facts:
Accused repeatedly touched and verbally abused a 10-year-old girl in the neighborhood.
Judicial Findings:
Court applied POCSO Section 7 and IPC Section 354A.
Observed that repeated harassment constitutes a pattern of abuse, and courts can impose cumulative sentencing.
Emphasized speedy trial provisions under POCSO to prevent retraumatization of the child.
Impact:
Introduced the principle that even minor acts of harassment, if repeated, amount to criminal abuse.
Reinforced that courts must treat children as primary victims deserving protection.
5. Lillu v. State of Delhi (2017, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Accused stalked a 13-year-old girl, sent threatening messages, and attempted to lure her online.
Judicial Findings:
Court convicted under IPC Section 354D (stalking), POCSO Section 7 (sexual harassment), and IT Act Section 66E (privacy violation).
Emphasized that digital harassment is punishable even without physical contact.
Directed police to follow child-friendly procedures during investigation and recording of testimony.
Impact:
Reinforced that criminal liability extends to cyber harassment, threats, and coercion of minors.
Encouraged courts to integrate IT Act provisions with POCSO for online abuse.
Key Principles Emerging from These Cases
Broad Liability for Harassment: Harassment, stalking, verbal abuse, and cyber threats are criminal under POCSO and IPC.
No Threshold for Physical Contact: Liability exists even without physical assault if the conduct is sexual or coercive.
Cyber Protection: Online harassment and exploitation are recognized as crimes; IT Act Sections 66E and 67B complement POCSO.
Speedy Trial and Child Protection: Courts emphasize child-friendly procedures to avoid secondary trauma.
Cumulative Punishment: Repeated harassment constitutes continuous abuse, allowing cumulative sentencing.
RELATED Blog
comments