<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Karnataka High Court has expressed its strong displeasure against a trial court judge for being \u2018highly insensible\u2019 and \u2018lacking professionalism,’ while dealing with the evidence in the aggravated sexual assault case of an 8-year-old girl.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The single-judge Bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar noted that the POCSO Court judge who acquitted the accused in the minor sexual assault case, required some training in the Karnataka Judicial Academy on handling these types of cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It suggested the POCSO Court judge to undergo training in the Karnataka Judicial Academy and sentenced the accused to a rigorous imprisonment of five years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The minor was sexually assaulted outside her house in February 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Accused Venkatesh faced trial under provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The trial court had acquitted the accused in December 2020 on the ground that no independent witnesses had been examined and that the doctor\u2019s evidence revealed that there was no injury on the victim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The State challenged this decision in the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court ruled that the POCSO Court had appreciated the evidence \u201ctoo technically\u201d and not in a correct manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It questioned how the trial court expected eyewitnesses in the POCSO case and called its approach \u201ccompletely erroneous, perverse and inhuman\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The single-judge Bench found the evidence of the parents of the minor girl relevant and believable. It also found the minor victim\u2019s evidence to be believable and trustworthy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court, after analysing the evidence of other relatives as well, said it was proved that the accused had committed the alleged offences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It said in these types of cases, the witnesses available are parents and relatives and minor victim. The POCSO Court wanted independent witnesses and eye-witnesses which is highly impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The trial court committed serious error in rejecting the doctor\u2019s evidence on the ground of absence of visible injuries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It said that when it had been alleged that the accused had squeezed the chest part of the victim there could not be an occurrence of injuries. The accused might have touched the chest part of the victim and back portion of the victim or might have lightly squeezed, then there could not be chances of occurring injuries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court further observed that the POCSO Court judge was not sensitive in appreciating the evidence on court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It said expecting injury in these types of offences of outraging modesty is completely unwarranted and \u2018shocked\u2019 the conscience of the Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Justice Sanjeevkumar added that the POCSO court had assigned flimsy reasons while acquitting the accused and had been \u201chighly insensible\u201d in appreciating the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Finding fault with the prosecution witness at every line and adopting too technicality is nothing but travesty of justice that is done by the POCSO Court judge in the present case, noted the Bench.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court ordered the District Legal Services Authority to pay compensation of Rs five lakh to the minor child under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Karnataka government was represented by Advocate Praveen Devaraddiyavar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Advocate Anwar Basha B appeared for the accused, while Amicus Curiae Sonu Suhel represented the complainant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Karnataka High Court has expressed its strong displeasure against a trial court judge for being \u2018highly insensible\u2019 and \u2018lacking professionalism,’ while dealing with the evidence in the aggravated sexual assault case of an 8-year-old girl. The single-judge Bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar noted that the POCSO Court judge who acquitted the accused in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50,"featured_media":328248,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[246,63001],"tags":[3507,330,130002,107997,89561],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2023\/12\/30144442\/karnataka-2.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/328246"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/50"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=328246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/328246\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/328248"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=328246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=328246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=328246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}