Judicial And Police Officers In West Bengal Require Sensitization: SC After Noticing Violation Of 33(7) POCSO Act & 228A IPC While Recording Statements Of Victim
|The Supreme Court recently observed that an exercise of sensitization of judicial officers as well as the police officers is required to be undertaken in West Bengal to ensure strict compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 33(7) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and Section 228A of the IPC while recording statements of a victim under Sections 164 and 161 of the Cr.P.C.
The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale observed, “the mandatory requirements of Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act and Section 228A of the I.P.C. have not been followed in this case inasmuch as while recording statements of the victim under Sections 164 and 161 of the Cr.P.C., her name is mentioned, and has not been masked as per law laid down in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703.”
AoR Arvind Gupta appeared for the Petitioner.
The Supreme Court was considering an SLP challenging an order passed by the Calcutta High Court refusing anticipatory bail. After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the material available on record, the Bench found that the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of anticipatory bail.
The Court highlighted the law laid down in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703 which holds that Section 24(5) and Section 33(7) of the POCSO make it clear that the name and identity of the child is not to be disclosed at any time during the course of investigation or trial and the identity of the child is protected from the public or media.
"We therefore feel that an exercise of sensitization of judicial officers as well as the police Officers is required to be undertaken in the State of West Bengal so as to ensure strict compliance of this mandatory requirement", the Court observed.
The Court further directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court for being placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Cause Title: Utpal Mandal @ Utpal Mondal V. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Arvind Gupta, Anil Kumar Sahu, Mohit Bidhuri, Suman Sharma, Kanav Bhardwaj.