Adult Sexual Predators Should Not Be Afforded Leeway By Trial Court By Micro Analysis Of Time & Place Of Incident: Sikkim HC
The Sikkim High Court remarked that the adult sexual predators should not be afforded leeway by the Trial Court by micro analysis of time and place of incident.
The Court remarked thus in an Appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused by the Special Judge for the offence under Sections 9(m) and 9 (n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai observed, “Matters concerning sexual offences against minors require to be dealt with sensitivity and the victim’s case ought to be given due consideration in terms of Section 29 of the POCSO Act when the deposition is evidently trustworthy, moreso when the accused has failed to establish lack of culpable mind as required under Section 30 of the POCSO Act. Adult sexual predators ought not to be dealt with leniency or extended misplaced sympathy they ought to face the penalty that their acts deserve and should not be afforded leeway by the Learned Trial Court by micro analysis of time and place of incident.”
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Yadev Sharma represented the Appellant/State while Senior Advocate Karma Thinlay represented the Respondent/accused.
In this case, the Trial Court while acquitting the Respondent/accused of the offences charged with, relied on the evidence of the victim, her step father, her mother, and the Staff of a Child Care Institution (CCI). The reasons weighed with Trial Court while acquitting the accused were: the accused who allegedly touched the victim’s vagina, did not remember the date, month or year of the incident neither did her step father or mother deposed that the incident had occurred two years prior to the recording of her evidence before the Court. Accordingly, the Court acquitted the accused and resultantly, the State challenged the acquittal before the High Court.
The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “Thus, having analyzed the entire evidence on record, I am constrained to opine that the Learned Trial Court was in error in acquitting the Respondent of the offences charged with despite the unwavering evidence of the child victim on record and her sole testimony suffices to convict the Respondent, her evidence being wholly trustworthy. It is settled law that the quality of a witness is of relevance and not the quantity.”
The Court added that the Trial Court was swayed by and impressed with peripheral extraneous and immaterial considerations which did not in any manner weaken the crux of the prosecution case of sexual assault on a minor by an adult man of fifty years.
“… a purposive interpretation is to be given to the POCSO Act and the specific mandate of Section 29 of the POCSO Act is to be extended due consideration. … the object of a Charge is to give the accused notice of the offence said to have been committed by him and the allegation that he is required to meet. If the necessary information has been conveyed to him, then no prejudice can be said to have been caused to him”, it further reiterated.
The Court concluded that the Court is to concern itself with a fair trial and assess whether the accused was subjected to a fair trial and in that context, there is no doubt.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- State of Sikkim v. Lall Bahadur Rai
Appearance:
Appellant: APP Yadev Sharma
Respondent: Senior Advocate Karma Thinlay, Advocates Chetan Sharma, Yashir N. Tamang, and Zamyang N. Bhutia.
