A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case analyzes the interpretation and scope of Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) concerning the storage, possession, and sharing of child pornographic material, particularly in light of the 2019 amendments. It also examines the interplay of Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 30 of POCSO. The judgment delves into the doctrine of constructive possession and explores whether the mens rea requirement is satisfied by mere storage without evidence of dissemination. The case culminates in directives for stricter definitions and comprehensive measures against child sexual exploitation material (CSEM).

Keywords: Section 15 POCSO, Section 67B IT Act, Child Pornographic Material, CSEM, Doctrine of Constructive Possession, Culpable Mental State

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgement Cause Title: Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors.
• ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161-2162 of 2024
• iii) Judgement Date: September 23, 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (CJI), J.B. Pardiwala, J.
• vi) Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.
• vii) Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 154 : 2024 INSC 716
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Sections 15, 30
  • Information Technology Act, 2000: Section 67B
• ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None
• x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Cyber Law, Child Rights Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case stems from allegations against the respondent, S. Harish, for possessing and storing child pornographic material on his mobile device. The issue arose following a cyber tip-off by the National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB). The legal question revolved around the interpretation of Section 15 of POCSO, particularly after its 2019 amendment, and whether mere possession or viewing of child pornographic content constitutes a punishable offense. Additionally, the presumption under Section 30 of POCSO and its applicability during trial or preliminary stages was examined.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• A cyber tipline report indicated that the accused had accessed child pornographic material on his mobile device for over two years.
• An FIR was registered under Section 67B of the IT Act and Section 14(1) of POCSO, later amended to Section 15(1).
• Forensic analysis revealed the presence of two video files depicting children in sexual activities and over 100 pornographic videos stored on the accused’s device.
• The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, citing insufficient grounds to establish mens rea for the alleged offenses under Section 15.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• i) What constitutes “possession” under Section 15 of POCSO, particularly with reference to constructive possession?
• ii) Is mere viewing or storing of child pornographic material punishable under POCSO?
• iii) Does Section 30 of POCSO allow for a statutory presumption of culpable mental state before trial?
• iv) Can such statutory presumptions be invoked in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• Section 15 penalizes mere storage of child pornographic material with requisite intent.
• Constructive possession suffices for culpability, even without physical possession.
• Ignorance of law is no defense; the respondent’s actions demonstrate mens rea.
• The statutory presumption under Section 30 applies irrespective of the trial stage.
• The High Court erred in quashing proceedings without assessing the evidence comprehensively.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• Mere possession without dissemination does not attract liability under Section 15.
• Ignorance of the illegality of storage negates mens rea.
• Presumption under Section 30 applies only during trial, not at the quashing stage.
• Forensic evidence does not conclusively establish intent for dissemination or commercial use.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• Constructive possession is sufficient for an offense under Section 15, provided mens rea is established.
• The statutory presumption under Section 30 is mandatory but rebuttable.
• Ignorance of law cannot justify possession or storage of child pornographic material.

b. Obiter Dicta

• The court emphasized the need to replace “child pornography” with “child sexual exploitation and abuse material” (CSEM) for precision and sensitivity.
• Recommended robust measures for public awareness and rehabilitation of offenders.

c. Guidelines

1. Constructive possession includes digital access to content controlled by the accused.
2. Ignorance of law defense must pass a bona fide test, which failed here.
3. High Courts must avoid quashing cases with prima facie evidence.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the stringent nature of POCSO and IT laws in addressing child exploitation. It reaffirms the inchoate nature of crimes under Section 15, highlighting that intent and knowledge are crucial for establishing culpability. The ruling balances protection of children with procedural safeguards for accused individuals, emphasizing a purposive interpretation of statutory provisions.

J) REFERENCES

1. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) INSC 1030.
4. Attorney General for India v. Satish, (2021) INSC 762.
5. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) AIR SC 604.