Unaffordable Cost Is Akin To Denial Of Relief: Kerala HC Reduces Heavy Costs Imposed For Recalling Witnesses In POCSO Case
The Kerala High Court reduced heavy costs of Rs.80,000/- imposed in a POCSO case for recalling witnesses while observing that onerous and unaffordable costs are akin to denial of the relief.
The Bench modified the costs imposed on two accused by the special court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The impugned order was challenged under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for imposition of heavy costs.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “Law does not permit imposition of such a heavy cost, which is a burden to the accused. No doubt, cost is liable to be imposed, in consideration of the ordeal of the witness/ess by recalling them, to take care of them and their expenses on account of recalling. An order of the court while granting a relief should be reasonable and fruitful.”
Advocate Anand Kalyanakrishnan appeared for the petitioners, while Sr. P.P. Renjit George represented the respondent.
The Special Judge, while allowing a petition filed by the accused under Section 311 of the CrPC to recall witnesses, had also imposed costs at the rate of Rs. 20k each.
The High Court stated that it was “interesting, rather shocking” to note that when the Special Judge found it necessary to recall witnesses to have a just decision in the case, he had imposed a heavy cost and thereby the benefit of the order deemed to be denied to the accused.
“That is to say, if the accused did not have sufficient money to pay Rs.80,000/- as cost, though recalling of PWs found necessary by the Special Judge, the accused could not re-examine the witnesses to defend their case and prove their innocence,” the Court remarked.
Therefore, the Bench modified the impugned order of the Single Judge in the interest of justice and reduced the costs imposed.
Consequently, the Bench held, “If onerous and unaffordable cost is imposed, the same is akin to denial of the relief, ie., denial of justice. If courts grant reliefs by imposing conditions like you can cut the flesh, without a drop of blood being spilled, the same is nothing but outright denial of relief on the guise of allowing the same.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: XXX & Anr. v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/51402)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Anand Kalyanakrishnan and C. Dheeraj Rajan
Respondent: Sr. P.P. Renjit George