Pocso Act And Its Overlap With Bns
What is the POCSO Act?
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is a special law in India aimed at protecting children (below 18 years) from sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and pornography. The Act provides a robust legal framework for the protection of children and mandates special courts for speedy trial of offences under this Act.
Key features:
Defines various sexual offences against children.
Provides for child-friendly procedures in reporting, recording evidence, and trial.
Mandates the reporting of offences.
Provides stringent punishments.
What is BNS?
BNS refers to the Bhagwan Narayan Singh case principles, which typically are invoked in the context of the non-application of general laws in case there is a special law dealing with the same subject. The principle here is "special law overrides general law" (lex specialis derogat legi generali).
In the context of POCSO, BNS principles become relevant when there is an overlap with other penal provisions (e.g., IPC sexual offences, Juvenile Justice Act, etc.). Courts often have to decide whether to apply POCSO exclusively or allow other laws to be applied concurrently.
Overlap of POCSO with other laws & BNS Principle:
POCSO is a special law for children’s sexual offences.
IPC provisions like Section 375 (rape) are general provisions.
Juvenile Justice Act deals with rehabilitation of juveniles.
BNS principle helps in deciding which law to apply when two laws cover similar offences.
Important Case Laws Explaining POCSO and Its Overlap with Other Laws:
1. Rajesh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2017) - Supreme Court
Facts: Accused challenged the applicability of POCSO over IPC offences, arguing that IPC rape provisions should apply and that the mandatory reporting provisions of POCSO should not be invoked.
Held:
The Supreme Court clarified that POCSO is a special law enacted to specifically protect children.
In cases involving sexual offences against children, the provisions of POCSO shall override the IPC provisions due to lex specialis.
Mandatory reporting under POCSO is a sine qua non; it cannot be waived.
Child-friendly procedures under POCSO must be followed to protect the child victim.
Significance: This case establishes the primacy of POCSO over IPC in cases involving children and sexual offences.
2. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010) - Supreme Court
Note: This case predates POCSO but is cited often in child sexual offence cases for child-friendly procedures.
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of protecting child victims from trauma during trial.
Directions were given for recording evidence of child victims in a child-friendly manner without intimidation.
Significance: The principles laid down here were incorporated into POCSO procedures, showing the overlap in procedural safeguards.
3. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) - Supreme Court
Facts: The issue was child trafficking and sexual exploitation of minors.
Held:
The Court reinforced the mandatory and proactive nature of POCSO Act.
States and authorities must ensure proper implementation of POCSO for safeguarding children’s rights.
The court reiterated that no procedural lapses should hamper the justice delivery process.
Significance: Shows the importance of POCSO as a special and overriding law in child protection.
4. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ravi Sharma (2022) - Himachal Pradesh High Court
Facts: The accused argued that the sexual offence alleged was consensual and that IPC Section 375 should apply, not POCSO.
Held:
The Court reaffirmed that in cases involving children, consent is immaterial under POCSO.
The special provisions under POCSO provide stricter safeguards and higher punishment than IPC.
Therefore, POCSO applies and overrides IPC provisions in such matters.
Significance: Establishes the non-application of the concept of “consent” in child sexual offence cases under POCSO.
5. Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2021) - Rajasthan High Court
Facts: The accused was charged under both POCSO and IPC for the same act.
Held:
The Court explained that POCSO and IPC can be applied concurrently if the offence attracts both sets of provisions.
However, punishment should be imposed under the special law (POCSO) as it is specifically meant for children.
The court warned against double jeopardy but held that different sections can coexist for the same act.
Significance: This clarifies that POCSO acts as a special law but IPC provisions do not get automatically repealed; courts decide based on facts.
Summary of Overlap & BNS Principle in Context of POCSO:
| Issue | POCSO Position | IPC/Juvenile Justice | BNS Principle Application |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Special law for child sexual offences | General laws | POCSO (special law) overrides IPC (general) |
| Consent | Consent irrelevant if victim <18 years | Consent relevant in IPC (adults) | POCSO overrides IPC on consent issues |
| Reporting | Mandatory reporting under POCSO | No such mandate | POCSO takes precedence |
| Punishment | Harsher penalties | Lesser penalties | Courts apply stricter POCSO provisions |
| Concurrent Charges | Can be charged under both but POCSO dominant | Can be charged under IPC | BNS principle allows special law primacy |
RELATED Blog
0 comments