Though Parties Are In Rivalry, CCTV Footage Shows Overt Acts By Accused: Kerala HC Refuses To Quash POCSO Case
The Kerala High Court refused to quash a case against man who was accused of lifting his dhoti and showing his nakedness to an 8-year-old girl.
A Criminal Miscellaneous Case was filed before the Court by the accused seeking quashing of the case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen enunciated, “It is true that, when the parties are in rivalry, false implication of one among them in a serious crime would be resorted to wreak vengeance and to see the obliteration of the opponent. At the same time, there may be occurrences otherwise also. In this case, though the parties are in rivalry, the CCTV footage would show the overt acts at the instance of the petitioner.”
Advocate M.P. Ashok Kumar represented the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth represented the Respondents.
Factual Background -
As per the prosecution case, the victim aged 8 years and studying in III Standard, was residing along with her parents and relatives and the Petitioner/accused was residing in the nearby house. It was alleged that the accused lifted his dhoti and showed his nakedness to the victim standing on the courtyard of his house. It was further alleged that the overt acts at the instance of the accused made the victim mentally shocked and she sat at the sitout for a while.
All at once, the accused allegedly lifted his dhoti again and showed his groin to the victim. On this premise, the prosecution alleged the commission of offences punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 12 read with 11(i) of the POCSO Act. The counsel for the Petitioner argued that the victim’s family and the accused were in rivalry and there were multiple litigations between them and hence, the crime was registered without any basis.
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, observed, “… the prosecution case is well made out, prima facie. In such a case, for the reasons argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, quashment could not be resorted to. Therefore, quashment sought for is liable to fail and the matter would require trial.”
The Court added that, even though, the counsel for the Petitioner argued that, the overt acts seen in the CCTV footage is there, no corresponding evidence forthcoming to see that the victim seen the same.
“This argument cannot be considered for two reasons. The first and foremost reason is that, the same is a matter of evidence. The second one is; the specific case of the victim is that she had seen the same. However, this is a good defense for the petitioner during trial”, it further said.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition and refused to quash case against the accused.
Cause Title- XXXXXXXXXX v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:93199)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates M.P. Ashok Kumar, Bindu Sreedhar, and Asif N.
Respondents: Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth and Advocate Mathew Kuriakose.
