Accused Cannot Be Exempted On Ground Of Mere Insanity In POCSO Cases: Chhattisgarh HC
|The Chhattisgarh High Court, while upholding conviction of accused in a POCSO case, observed that an accused cannot be exempted on the ground of mere insanity in special offences under the POCSO Act.
The Bench rejected the argument presented by the accused wherein he contended that the trial Court had committed a “grave legal error” in not accepting his plea of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the IPC. The Court noted that no leniency could be shown towards the accused as he had sexually assaulted a 12-year-old minor victim. Further, the prosecution too had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed, “The chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to one conclusion that it was the accused/appellant who has committed the aforesaid crime. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the trial Court. Since the victim was below the age of 12 years on the date of incident, hence, offence under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act is fully proved against the appellant.”
In head-note published along with the judgment, it said that "accused cannot be exempted on the ground of mere insanity in special offences under the POCSO Act, 2012. The doctrine to prove exceptions beyond reasonable doubt must sustain."
Advocate Pushpendra Kumar Patel represented the appellant, while A.A.G. Ranbir Singh Marhas appeared for the respondent.
The accused had challenged the impugned judgment of the trial court which convicted the appellant under Section 376AB of the IPC, but did not award a sentence under this Section. He was convicted under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1964) where it was held that the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an accused had committed the offence with the requisite, mens rea. Regarding the plea of legal insanity, the Apex Court stated that a court had to consider “whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.”
Therefore, the High Court had to determine whether the appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind on the date of the commission of the offence.
“When the accused was examined regarding charges and punishment…when asked the reason for bringing him to jail, he shyly lowered his head and looked at him. When asked about the allegations, he became serious and started shaking his head in denial. The above facts shows that the appellant has the capacity to understand the seriousness of the charge imposed on him and his criminal responsibilities and also has a feeling of guilt,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that “we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: XYZ v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024:CGHC:20556-DB)