{"id":7213,"date":"2025-09-02T17:29:00","date_gmt":"2025-09-02T11:59:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/sc-restores-conviction-in-pocso-case-calls-hcs-acquittal-unsustainable\/"},"modified":"2026-07-21T17:32:53","modified_gmt":"2026-07-21T12:02:53","slug":"sc-restores-conviction-in-pocso-case-calls-hcs-acquittal-unsustainable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213","title":{"rendered":"SC Restores Conviction In POCSO Case : Calls HC\u2019s Acquittal \u2018Unsustainable\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">The Supreme Court has set aside the acquittal and restored the conviction of two accused charged with S.376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and Sections 4 &amp; 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 in a notable ruling. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p dir=\"ltr\" style=\"text-align:center\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">The bench of <\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><strong>Justice Sanjay Kumar<\/strong><\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"> and <\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><strong>Justice Satish Chandra <\/strong><\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">was hearing an appeal challenging the judgment of the Patna High Court, which had acquitted the accused on the grounds of inconsistencies in the prosecution&rsquo;s case and procedural lapses, particularly the improper joinder of charges under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><strong style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif; font-size:14pt\">FACTS:<\/strong><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif; font-size:14pt\">The case originated from an FIR registered in Piro, Bihar, in July 2016. The victim, a minor, was found to be three months pregnant during a medical examination. She disclosed that she had been repeatedly raped by the Respondent No.1 and Respndent No. 2 over several months, commencing shortly after the Holi festival.<\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif; font-size:14pt\">The threats of death prevented her from reporting the incidents immediately. After trial, the Special Court convicted the respondents under Section 376(2) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing them to rigorous life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the respondents, citing major infirmities in the prosecution&#39;s case, including:<\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <ul>\n \n <li dir=\"ltr\" style=\"list-style-type:disc\">\n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\">Failure to prove the precise date and time of the incident. <\/span><\/p>\n \n <\/li>\n \n <li dir=\"ltr\" style=\"list-style-type:disc\">\n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\">Lack of conclusive determination of the victim&rsquo;s age. <\/span><\/p>\n \n <\/li>\n \n <li dir=\"ltr\" style=\"list-style-type:disc\">\n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\">Absence of proof of pregnancy and abortion. <\/span><\/p>\n \n <\/li>\n \n <li dir=\"ltr\" style=\"list-style-type:disc\">\n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\">Improper framing of charges, which incorrectly stated the date of offense as the date of FIR registration. <\/span><\/p>\n \n <\/li>\n \n <li dir=\"ltr\" style=\"list-style-type:disc\">\n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\">Illegal joinder of trial of the two accused under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which caused prejudice.<\/span><\/p>\n \n <\/li>\n \n <\/ul>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif; font-size:14pt\">At the outset, the judgement begins with the court observing that the struggle for sensitivity towards offences against women, children, and other marginalized groups had passed through various phases of evolution.<\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">It noted that although the end goal was desirable, the journey was not always pleasant. It also emphasized the situation the victims are in, where at one juncture they are confronting a system filled with insensitive stakeholders, while at other times they are <\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><strong>caught in conflict with the procedural intricacies of the law.<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif; font-size:14pt\">It further stated that, despite the importance of procedural sanctity, it amounted to a failure of the system as a whole when a culprit, particularly in cases of heinous sexual offences, managed to walk free by entangling the victim in misapplication of procedural rules, without the victim&rsquo;s knowledge or control.<\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif; font-size:14pt\">After considering the submissions of both parties, the Court proceeded to examine the inconsistencies highlighted by the High Court in its judgment, particularly those relating to the victim&rsquo;s age, the date and time of the alleged incident, proof of pregnancy and abortion.<\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><strong style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif; font-size:14pt\">Determination of the Victim&rsquo;s Age<\/strong><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif; font-size:14pt\">The bench observed that the victim&rsquo;s mother (PW-3) and father (PW-5) consistently stated she was 12 years old. Furthermore, A school transfer certificate recorded the victim&rsquo;s date of birth as 03.10.2004, making her approximately 12 years old in 2016.<\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">A medical report from 01.07.2016 noted her age as 15. The Court held that while the age in the medical report showed a variation, the consistent oral evidence and official document from the school conclusively established her minority.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">Crucially, the court also pointed out that the age of the victim was not challenged during cross-examination of any of the witnesses mentioned above.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif; font-size:14pt\">The bench accepted the fact that there are slight variations in the age of the victim at the relevant point of time, but given the unrebutted oral and documentary evidence the bench found that the High Court has erred in raising a doubt where none existed, even inter se the parties to the case.<\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">However, the bench clarified that it did not mean to say that in cases involving POCSO Act or Juvenile Justice (Care &amp; Protection) Act, 2015, the determination of age is not required but rather emphasized that in rural contexts, minor discrepancies in documents are not uncommon, and the protective intent of the POCSO Act must not be diluted by insisting on &quot;<\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><strong>rigid determination<\/strong><\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">&quot; of age where minority is evident.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><strong style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif; font-size:14pt\">Proof of Date, Time, Pregnancy, and Abortion<\/strong><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif; font-size:14pt\">The Supreme Court found the High Court&rsquo;s conclusions on these aspects were based on an erroneous appreciation of evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><strong>Date and Time<\/strong><\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">: The victim, a traumatized child, consistently stated the assaults began after Holi and continued for months. The medical report confirming a 3-4 month pregnancy on 01.07.2016 perfectly corroborated this timeframe. The Court reiterated that a victim&rsquo;s inability to recall the exact date and time is natural, especially when intimidation causes a delay in reporting.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><strong>Pregnancy and Abortion<\/strong><\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">: The Court found &quot;ample documentary and oral evidence&quot; proving these facts, including the medical report (Annexure P-1) confirming pregnancy, testimony of the doctor (PW-7), and a discharge ticket from Sadar Hospital, Ara, related to the abortion. A letter from the Bihar State Legal Services Authority (Annexure P-4) seeking permission for the abortion further cemented the proof.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif; font-size:14pt\">Further, addressing the High Court&rsquo;s reliance on defective framing of charges, the Supreme Court observed Section 464 Cr.P.C., which provides that a conviction is not vitiated merely by irregularity in framing charges unless it causes a failure of justice.<\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">The Court found no prejudice caused to the accused, as the timeframe of the offence was consistently known, and the defence had the opportunity to contest all allegations.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">Similarly, while the High Court found fault in the joint trial under Section 223 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court clarified that misjoinder does not automatically vitiate proceedings unless actual prejudice or miscarriage of justice is demonstrated. The Court reiterated principles from <\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><em>Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab<\/em><\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"> (2021 INSC 642), holding that prejudice must be real, not presumed.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">Lastly, the bench dealt with the standard of <\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><strong>Reasonable doubt<\/strong><\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"> where it cautioned against misapplying the principle of &quot;<\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><strong>proof beyond reasonable doubt&quot; to mean &quot;any doubt.&quot;<\/strong><\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"> A reasonable doubt must be a serious, rational doubt that makes the prosecution&#39;s case improbable and suggests a probable alternate version. Acquittals based on minor inconsistencies, contradictions, or procedural lapses that cause no prejudice elevate form over substance and erode public confidence in the justice system.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">Thus, after due consideration, the court ultimately held that, <\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><strong><em>in view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside being unsustainable. The view taken by the Trial Court was correct and we find no infirmity in the same. The judgment of the Trial Court stands restored, both on conviction and sentence.&rdquo;<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <hr \/>\n \n <p><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">Case Title: <\/span><\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/supremecourt\/2024\/56191\/56191_2024_13_1501_63783_Judgement_01-Sep-2025.pdf\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><span style=\"color:#1155cc\"><strong>Sushil Kumar Tiwari v Hare Ram Sah &amp; Ors.,3813\/2025<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><strong>Advocate for Petitioner(s):<\/strong><\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"> Mr. Daksha Kumar, Adv. Ms. Tanishq Mehta, Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ankita Baluni, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Monga, Adv.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\"><strong>Advocate for Respondent(s): <\/strong><\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif\">Mr. Talib Mustafa, Adv. Ms. Raksha Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B.F., AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court has set aside the acquittal and restored the conviction of two accused charged with S.376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and Sections 4 &amp; 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 in a notable ruling. The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":92,"featured_media":9343,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.5 (Yoast SEO v28.1) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>SC Restores Conviction In POCSO Case : Calls HC\u2019s Acquittal \u2018Unsustainable\u2019 - Lawful Talks<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"noindex, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SC Restores Conviction In POCSO Case : Calls HC\u2019s Acquittal \u2018Unsustainable\u2019\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court has set aside the acquittal and restored the conviction of two accused charged with S.376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and Sections 4 &amp; 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 in a notable ruling. The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lawful Talks\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-09-02T11:59:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-21T12:02:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/6895967f1f7d61c7bce3f27a8a63f63d_2.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"850\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"650\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Akshaj Joshi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Akshaj Joshi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Akshaj Joshi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/dcf790f131e13e020c56ccd0c71d9c35\"},\"headline\":\"SC Restores Conviction In POCSO Case : Calls HC\u2019s Acquittal \u2018Unsustainable\u2019\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-02T11:59:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-21T12:02:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213\"},\"wordCount\":1175,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/6895967f1f7d61c7bce3f27a8a63f63d_2.jpeg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213\",\"name\":\"SC Restores Conviction In POCSO Case : Calls HC\u2019s Acquittal \u2018Unsustainable\u2019 - Lawful Talks\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/6895967f1f7d61c7bce3f27a8a63f63d_2.jpeg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-02T11:59:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-21T12:02:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/6895967f1f7d61c7bce3f27a8a63f63d_2.jpeg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/6895967f1f7d61c7bce3f27a8a63f63d_2.jpeg\",\"width\":850,\"height\":650},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=7213#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SC Restores Conviction In POCSO Case : Calls HC\u2019s Acquittal \u2018Unsustainable\u2019\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/\",\"name\":\"Lawful Talks\",\"description\":\"Trusted Legal News and Thoughtful Analysis.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Lawful Talks\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/open-graph-image-lawful-talks.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/open-graph-image-lawful-talks.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":630,\"caption\":\"Lawful Talks\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/dcf790f131e13e020c56ccd0c71d9c35\",\"name\":\"Akshaj Joshi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/39025ffd913a6aba4e869451f56d5f88fd3e6f0183c137b18a5080625c53caee?s=96&d=blank&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/39025ffd913a6aba4e869451f56d5f88fd3e6f0183c137b18a5080625c53caee?s=96&d=blank&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/39025ffd913a6aba4e869451f56d5f88fd3e6f0183c137b18a5080625c53caee?s=96&d=blank&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Akshaj Joshi\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?author=92\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC Restores Conviction In POCSO Case : Calls HC\u2019s Acquittal \u2018Unsustainable\u2019 - Lawful Talks","robots":{"index":"noindex","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"SC Restores Conviction In POCSO Case : Calls HC\u2019s Acquittal \u2018Unsustainable\u2019","og_description":"The Supreme Court has set aside the acquittal and restored the conviction of two accused charged with S.376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and Sections 4 &amp; 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 in a notable ruling. The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213","og_site_name":"Lawful Talks","article_published_time":"2025-09-02T11:59:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-21T12:02:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":850,"height":650,"url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/6895967f1f7d61c7bce3f27a8a63f63d_2.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Akshaj Joshi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Akshaj Joshi","Estimated reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213"},"author":{"name":"Akshaj Joshi","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#\/schema\/person\/dcf790f131e13e020c56ccd0c71d9c35"},"headline":"SC Restores Conviction In POCSO Case : Calls HC\u2019s Acquittal \u2018Unsustainable\u2019","datePublished":"2025-09-02T11:59:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-21T12:02:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213"},"wordCount":1175,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/6895967f1f7d61c7bce3f27a8a63f63d_2.jpeg","articleSection":["Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213","url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213","name":"SC Restores Conviction In POCSO Case : Calls HC\u2019s Acquittal \u2018Unsustainable\u2019 - Lawful Talks","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/6895967f1f7d61c7bce3f27a8a63f63d_2.jpeg","datePublished":"2025-09-02T11:59:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-21T12:02:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/6895967f1f7d61c7bce3f27a8a63f63d_2.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/6895967f1f7d61c7bce3f27a8a63f63d_2.jpeg","width":850,"height":650},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7213#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SC Restores Conviction In POCSO Case : Calls HC\u2019s Acquittal \u2018Unsustainable\u2019"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/","name":"Lawful Talks","description":"Trusted Legal News and Thoughtful Analysis.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#organization","name":"Lawful Talks","url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/open-graph-image-lawful-talks.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/open-graph-image-lawful-talks.jpg","width":1200,"height":630,"caption":"Lawful Talks"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#\/schema\/person\/dcf790f131e13e020c56ccd0c71d9c35","name":"Akshaj Joshi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/39025ffd913a6aba4e869451f56d5f88fd3e6f0183c137b18a5080625c53caee?s=96&d=blank&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/39025ffd913a6aba4e869451f56d5f88fd3e6f0183c137b18a5080625c53caee?s=96&d=blank&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/39025ffd913a6aba4e869451f56d5f88fd3e6f0183c137b18a5080625c53caee?s=96&d=blank&r=g","caption":"Akshaj Joshi"},"url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?author=92"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/92"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7213"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7213\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9342,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7213\/revisions\/9342"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/9343"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}