Court Criticizes Prolonged Litigation in Child Sexual Assault Case, Orders Completion Within Eight Weeks
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has directed the expeditious conclusion of a long-pending trial in a case involving the alleged sexual assault of a minor, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The writ petition was filed by Piyush Ranjan, the de facto complainant, challenging the decision of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge for POCSO Cases, Bengaluru Rural, which declined to summon a Magistrate to verify a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
The case, registered in 2014, revolves around a complaint alleging sexual assault on a minor girl at Vibgyor High School. Despite the gravity of the allegations, the proceedings have languished for over a decade, prompting the High Court to intervene. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, emphasized the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act, which mandates speedy trials to protect child victims from prolonged trauma.
The petitioner argued that the examination of the Magistrate was crucial due to the absence of signatures on the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, the High Court observed that the procedural norms do not necessitate the summoning of a Magistrate unless a witness denies making the statement. Drawing on precedents from the High Court of Madras, Justice Nagaprasanna underscored that such statements are not substantive evidence but can be used for corroboration or contradiction during trials.
Beyond procedural issues, the court expressed profound concern over the 12-year delay in trial proceedings. Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted the constitutional imperative of a speedy trial, especially in cases involving child victims, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judge lamented the repeated adjournments that have compounded the victim's trauma, urging the trial court to prioritize the case and adhere strictly to the timeline set by the POCSO Act.
In response to the prolonged delay, the High Court has issued a directive for the trial to be concluded within eight weeks, emphasizing that the timeline is obligatory and must be adhered to in letter and spirit. The court cautioned against unwarranted adjournments and empowered the Special Court to take measures to ensure compliance with its order.
This ruling serves as a stark reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of child victims and upholding the principles of justice through timely legal proceedings. The Karnataka High Court's intervention seeks to restore faith in the criminal justice system by ensuring that cases under the POCSO Act are handled with the urgency they deserve.
Bottom line:-
Examination of a Magistrate recording a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not necessary unless the witness denies making the statement. POCSO Act mandates speedy trial to ensure justice and reduce the trauma of the victim.
Statutory provision(s): Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Sections 4, 6, 21, 24, 25, 26, and 35 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Piyush Ranjan v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2940768
