The Karnataka High Court has quashed the order passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC- II, Bengaluru observing that the rigours of Section 33(5) of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) which bars repeated examination of a child survivor gets diluted when such survivor turns 18.

A single bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Mahammad Ali Akbar @ Ali Umar.

The petitioner / accused in Special C.C.No.407 of 2019 before Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC – II, Bengaluru arising out of crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is before the Court calling in question order dated 07-04-2022 rejecting the application filed by him under Section 311 of the CrPC for recalling of PW 1 for further cross- examination.

The facts of the case are that the complainant is the mother of the victim and the petitioner is the son of her husband’s elder sister and are thus, members within the same family. In the month of April 2018, it is alleged that when the parents were not at home, the petitioner had indulged in certain acts on the daughter of the complainant which became an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act.

The petitioner is also alleged to have threatened the victim that if she raises hue and cry he would upload such photographs on social media and that became offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and the alleged sexual acts became offence under Section 376 IPC.

Also Read: PIL in Supreme Court seeks cancellation of Section 2C of National Minority Commission Act, 1992

A crime came to be registered invoking the aforesaid provisions of law. 

In the said case, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC seeking recall of the victim for further cross-examination. This having been rejected by the Sessions Judge, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that further cross-examination is sought for in the light of peculiar facts of the case, as the victim is a member of the family and was in love with the petitioner. Both these facts if elicited from the mouth of the victim, the case against the petitioner would likely end in acquittal as it would become a consensual act or the matter would be settled since the victim is petitioner’s mother’s brother’s daughter.

The counsel further submitted that it is also the case of the father of the victim in his cross-examination that the petitioner has not committed any sexual act on the victim. It is on these grounds he sought recalling of the witness.

The High Court Government Pleader representing the State vehemently refuted the submissions and contended that repeated cross-examination or calling of the victim for cross-examination is specifically barred under the statute itself and, therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the Sessions Judge for rejecting the application under Section 311 of the CrPC.

Also Read: Jahangirpuri: Hawkers with legal shops plea to be heard with main matter

The Court observed that after framing of charges against the petitioner the evidence commenced with examination of the victim on 25-04-2019. Later the cross-examination was done on 29-11-2019 and the matter was thereupon listed on certain dates and the Court was closed due to onset of Covid-19 pandemic.

After the resumption of Court, the parents of the victim were examined. Due to the petitioner being in judicial custody right from 03-01-2019, it is the case of the counsel for the petitioner that cross-examination could not be completed by the counsel for manifold reasons.

The Court noted,

A perusal at the cross-examination of the father of the victim would reveal that he has admitted that there was no sexual act committed on the victim by the petitioner. In view of the said deposition, the petitioner files the application for further cross-examination of victim on 28-03-2022 invoking Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The Court rejects it by an order dated 07-04-2022. The reason for rejection is placing reliance upon Section 33 ( 5 ) of the Act which directs that the victim – child should not be repeatedly brought before the court for tendering evidence.

The petitioner narrates in the application that serious prejudice will be caused to the defence if cross-examination is not permitted of the victim, that too in the light of admission of the father of the victim in his cross-examination that the accused has not committed any sexual act on the victim and also admits about the ill-will between the parents of the accused and the victim. This is turned down by the Sessions Judge by holding that examination-in-chief and cross-examination was over on 09-01-2020 and after two years, the petitioner has filed this application seeking recalling of the witness and that having been specifically barred, no relief can be granted to the petitioner on the application so filed. The other ground on which the application is rejected is that the victim has already been cross-examined at length on two hearing dates and as such no permission can be granted.

Also Read: Delhi High Court issues notice to ED on Enamul Haque bail plea

The Court held,

In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court V.N. Patil vs K. Niranjan Kumar (supra), the petitioner who is now facing trial for offences punishable under the provisions of the Act, if convicted, would end up with conviction of more than 10 years. In such a case, the accused should be given an opportunity to defend himself, except in cases where an application is filed by adopting dilatory tactics.

The reason rendered in the application filed is clear that it is filed only after the admission of the father of the victim that there was no sexual act committed by the petitioner on the victim. Therefore , the order rejecting the application despite the soul and spirit of Section 311 CrPC being as is held by the Apex Court is thus rendered unsustainable.

The other factor that is necessary to be noticed is the current age of the victim. The counsel for the petitioner has placed on record, the study certificate issued by the school in which the victim had studied. As on 18-01-2019, the victim was about 15 years of age as her date of birth was 02.01.2004. As on date of filing of the application by the petitioner under Section 311 CrPC which was on 28-03-2022, the victim had crossed 18 years of age. Once the victim crosses 18, the rigour of Section 33 ( 5 ) of the Act gets diluted, as it is the child-victim who shall not be called for cross examination or re- examination repeatedly. The word ‘child’ is defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, to mean a person below 18 years of age. On the child attaining 18 years of age, the rigour under Section 33 (5) of the Act gets diluted and sequentially, will not become a bar for seeking further cross-examination of the victim under Section 311 of the CrPC. It is more so in cases where the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under the Act as there is presumption under Section 29 of the Act against the accused. To bring in evidence contrary to the presumption is a heavy burden cast upon the accused for offences punishable under the Act. Therefore, to rebut such presumption, as also, peculiar reasons in the case at hand, the victim ought to have been permitted to be cross-examined by accepting the application seeking to recall the witness. This would be imperative to see that the trial does not result in miscarriage of justice in any manner and such miscarriage is prevented at any point of spell and juncture.

Also Read: Supreme Court adjourns plea by NCLT Bar Association on fixing tenure of NCLT members to three years

The Court passed the following order:

Criminal petition is allowed and the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC- II, Bengaluru stands quashed.

(ii) The application of the petitioner dated 28-03-2022 filed under Section 311 of the CrPC seeking recall of the victim for further cross-examination stands allowed and the petitioner shall be permitted to cross examine victim on a particular date to be fixed by the Sessions Judge as a last opportunity and shall complete cross-examination on that particular date so fixed by the Sessions Judge.

(iii) It is made clear that the accused will not be entitled to filing of repeated applications of the nature under Section 311 of the CrPC.

The Delhi High Court upheld the judgment of a trial court which convicted a man under Section 363 (kidnapping) of the IPC and Section 8 (punishment for sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The trial court had said that the “accused had taken the victim to another place” and “held her hand” and that it was sufficient to invoke the POCSO Act.

A single judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad noted: “Sexual intent can be inferred by the appellant holding the wrist of the prosecutrix while opening the lock.” The accused, Krishna Murti, had filed the appeal and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the FIR filed by the mother of the victim as she had wanted to implicate him because of an earlier quarrel.

The victim was a minor girl who went to Nawada (south-west Delhi) to buy momos and on her way back, Murti, her neighbour, made her sit on his scooty and took her to a house in Matiala, where he told her that he wanted to speak to her. He held her hand tightly while trying to open the lock but the victim fled.

Advocate Maroof Ahmad, appearing for Murti, said: “The child victim has been tutored to make false statements because of the quarrel.” It was also submitted that there were many contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements of the victim, her brother and mother. However, Additional Public Prosecutor Kusum Dhalla said that the testimony of the child and her mother were consistent and reliable, and that no one would tutor a child to file a false case as revenge for a simple quarrel over drying of clothes.

The bench stated: “It is for the accused to come with the statement as to why he took the victim to the house in Matiala when he knew where the victim resides.” It further noted: “It cannot be said that there is a material improvement in the statement of the prosecutrix. In view of the above the foundation fact for an offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act stands established.”

Relying on Section 27 of the POCSO Act, Justice Subramonium stated that it raises a presumption against an accused for committing or attempting to commit an offence under Section 7 (Sexual Assault) of the Act. Section 27 says: “Whoever attempts to commit any offence punishable under this Act or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt, does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence….”

Read Also: Kashi Vishwanath Mandir-Gyanvapi Masjid dispute: Varanasi court clears ASI survey of mosque

The bench, while upholding the trial court judgment, dismissed the appeal and observed: “This Court is also not inclined to accept the story of the appellant that he has been implicated because of enmity.”

—By Gautam Mishra and India Legal News Service

The Delhi High Court has recently refused to exercise its jurisdiction to quash an FIR registered for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) saying that the same would “go against the intention of the legislature to protect the interests of children.”

In an order dated March 24, a single judge bench of the high court presided over by Justice Subramanium Prasad said, “Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash an offence under POCSO Act would go against the intention of the legislature which has brought out the special enactment to protect the interests of children.”

“FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that the victim after attaining majority has decided to compromise the matter with the accused,” the bench said while dismissing a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the case on the grounds of compromise. 

The plea filed through Advocate Deepak Kumar Gupta sought quashing of an FIR dated 07.05.2018 registered in Police Station Shakarpur for offences punishable under Sections 354, 354D, 506, 509, 34 IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act on the ground that the prosecutrix and the petitioners have compromised the matter.

The plea states that the compromise has been entered into between the prosecutrix, who has now turned major, the mother of the prosecutrix and the petitioner. 

According to the facts of the case, the prosecutrix had alleged that the petitioner, who was her distant relative, began to stay in her house and that he started to “started looking at her with strange eyes” in the absence of her parents.

It was further alleged that the accused, along with his other two nephews threatened her regarding her photographs and even to kill her parents. 

The high court while pronouncing the order noted that the Supreme Court has categorically stated that heinous crime like rape cannot be quashed by the High Court by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the prosecutrix and the accused have entered into a compromise. 

It also noted that though the High Court has the power to quash even in those offences which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, but the power has to be exercised fairly and with caution. 

While concluding its order, the court said, “this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR dated 07.05.2018 registered in Police Station Shakarpur, wherein the petitioners have been accused of the offence under Section 10 of POCSO Act. The petition is accordingly dismissed.”

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, finding many inconsistencies in the testimony and statements made by the prosecutrix and her witnesses, as well as finding that medical evidence provided was insufficient, has acquitted a man convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for allegedly raping and threatening to kill the minor victim.

The appeal was filed by the accused himself, against claims made by the prosecutrix at different times during the investigation and the examination-in-chief alleging that the accused tried to sexually assault her. The appellant/accused claimed that there were inconsistencies in the statement and the evidences were not sufficient to substantiate the allegation that the accused had committed the offence.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru passed the acquittal orders, holding that, given the evidence and material on record, the standard of proof to convict the appellant has not been met. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The appellant is acquitted. “He is directed to be released forthwith,” said the court. 

The appellant (accused) contended that the trial court erred in not taking into account the testimony of relevant witnesses to the case also not appreciating that there was a dispute regarding the property where the appellant and the prosecutrix resided where she was tutored to falsely implicate the appellant to put pressure on him to leave the said property.

The counsel has sought to challenge the lower court’s judgment convicting the accused for 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The High Court has observed that there was no meaningful investigation conducted by the police and the investigating officer did not seem to have any idea about the place of alleged offence. There seems nothing to corroborate the statement of the prosecutrix and the witnesses to the case. The procecutix is a child who could easily be persuaded by any family member. The High Court has also observed that there was some property dispute between the family members that changes the outlook of the case.

The High Court added, “It is settled law that the solitary testimony of a victim is sufficient for convicting the accused provided the testimony is unimpeachable and trustworthy. It should be reliable so as to establish that the accused had committed the offence beyond any reasonable doubt.”

Read Also: Delhi HC extends all its subsisting interim orders till October 31

The High Court quoted the apex court’s judgments regarding the attributes of a sterling witness and is of the view that the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be accepted as that of one. 

Read the Judgment here;

– India Legal Bureau