Child accused of POCSO offence to be tried as per the JJ Act

CategoryPolity

Last Updated30/03/2024

The Kerala High Court has held that a child charged with the offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012
is to be prosecuted as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) (JJ) Act.

The court observed that ‘Child’ was not defined in the POCSO Act whereas it is defined in the JJ Act, 2015.
Section 2(12) of the JJ Act, defined a child to be a person who has not completed 18 years of age.
The court added that “aforementioned definitions would ensure an inference that a child can be an offender of sexual offences as defined in the POCSO Act.
Needless to say, when a child is the offender, he cannot be tried in the ordinary criminal court, but can be dealt with only as provided under the provisions of the JJ Act”.

Parliament introduced and passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act in 2015 to replace the Juvenile Delinquency Law and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act) 2000.
The Act offered provisions to allow trials of juveniles in the age group of 16-18 years as an adult who were found to be in conflict with the law, especially heinous crimes.
The Act replaced the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956) and Guardians of the ward Act (1890) with more universally accessible adoption law.
The Act enabled smooth functioning of adoption procedures for orphans, surrendered, and abandoned children
- While making the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) the statutory body for adoption-related matters.

All Child Care Institutions, whether run by the State Government or by voluntary or
- Non-governmental organisations are to be mandatorily registered under the Act within 6 months from the date of commencement of the Act.

Crimes against children which are mentioned in the chapter “Other Offences Against Children” of the JJ Act, 2015 that allow an imprisonment between three and seven years will be deemed “non-cognisable”.

Amendment provides that the district magistrate has the authority to issue such adoption orders.