Landmark Judgements on Children Issues
|Dinesh vs State of Rajasthan
AIR 2006 SC 1267.
|The Supreme Court stated that the name of the victim shall not be published even in the publication of the judgments of the courts.|
|Vishall Jeet vs Union of India
AIR 1990 SC 1412
|The Supreme Court issued directions to the State Government for eradicating child prostitution and setting up rehabilitative homes for such children.|
|Master Rajeev Shankarlal Parmar vs Officer-In-Charge, Police.
2003 Cri.L.J. 4522
|The Court directed every State Government that as far as pending cases relating to offences punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years, to complete the investigation within a period of 3 months. 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. If it is not, the prosecution shall be quashed.|
|Om Prakash vs State of U.P
Case No. Appeal (crl.) 629 of 2006
|The victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require any corroboration including that of a doctor. 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.|
|Childline India Foundation & Anr vs Alan John Waters & Ors
8 March, 2011
|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|
|Roxann Sharma vs Arun Sharma
Civil Appeal No. 1966 OF 2015
|Custody should be given to the mother so long as the child is below five years in age.
The onus on the 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.
|State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh,
AIR 1996 SC 1393
|The Supreme Court was highly critical of the acquittal of persons accused of gang-raping a 16 year old girl.
It observed that the appreciation of evidence by the trial court was “not only unreasonable but perverse”.
|Sakshi vs Union of India
AIR 2004 SC 3566
|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.|
|Hari Ram vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Cri. Appl. No. 907/2009
|Raises certain questions which are fundamental to the understanding and implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.|
|Court on its own motion vs State of Delhi
MANU/DE/8458/2007, decided by the Delhi High Court on 14 August 2007
|The Delhi High Court laid down guidelines – to ensure sensitivity of the criminal justice system towards victims of child sexual abuse; 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.|
|Prerana vs State of Maharashtra
(2003) 2 BOMLR 562
|The Court observed that women and children need to be protected against trafficking. It examined the issue of minors being charged under the ITPA and produced before the JJB as juveniles in conflict with law instead of being treated as children in need of care and protection. It also barred legal representation of the victims by the advocate for the traffickers.|
|R. D. Upadhyay vs State of Andhra Pradesh
AIR 2006 SC 1946.
|The Supreme Court considered the development of children in jail with their mothers, who are either under trial prisoners or convicts.
It was further suggested that arrest of women suspects be made only by lady police.
|Centre for enquiry into Health and Allied themes (CEHAT) vs Union of India
2003 (8) SCC 398.
|The Supreme Court issued guidelines to prevent female foeticide.|
|Independent Thought vs Union of India and Anr.
Writ Petition (civil) no. 382 of 2013
|A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that sexual intercourse with a minor (below 18 years) wife is rape.|
Others important judgments
|Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. & Ors.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008.
|Supreme Court held that:
i. Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses that if a cognizable offence is committed.
ii. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether it is a cognizable offence.
|Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr
Dated on 2 July, 2014.
|Mandatory registration of FIR in cases of dowry harassment.|
|Chand Devi Daga & Ors. vs Manju K. Humatani & Ors.
Criminal Appeal No. 1860 of 2017
|The Supreme Court upheld a High Court Judgment that allowed legal heirs of the complainant to prosecute the petition before the High Court.|