Court affirms the absence of evidence for charges under IPC, POCSO, and SC/ST Act against accused Iqbal.
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the discharge of Iqbal, accused in a high-profile case involving allegations of kidnapping and sexual assault under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The judgment, delivered by Justice Alok Awasthi, dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, affirming the Special Judge's decision to discharge the accused due to insufficient evidence.
The case stemmed from an incident on September 25, 2015, when the prosecutrix, aged 17 years and 5 months, was reported missing by her mother, leading to the registration of an FIR. The police later recovered the prosecutrix, and charges were filed against Iqbal under Sections 363 of IPC, 7/8 of POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
During the proceedings, the High Court observed that the prosecutrix had stated she left her home willingly and was neither kidnapped nor subjected to any wrongdoing by the accused. The court noted the absence of medical or scientific evidence and emphasized that no oral allegations of sexual assault were made by the prosecutrix.
The judgment further highlighted that for a charge under the SC/ST Act to be sustained, there must be an allegation that the accused committed an offense with the knowledge of the victim's caste status, a requirement unmet in this case.
Citing the Supreme Court's precedent, the High Court reiterated that charges should not be framed if the material collected does not establish the basic ingredients of the alleged offenses. The court concluded that the evidence presented did not support the allegations, and the charges were groundless.
The decision underscores the necessity for substantial evidence when framing charges and serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of individuals against unfounded accusations.
Bottom Line :
Framing of charge - If the material collected during investigation, even if accepted at face value, does not disclose the basic ingredients of kidnapping, sexual assault under POCSO, or offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the accused is liable to be discharged.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Section 363, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 7 and 8, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(2)(v), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Iqbal, (Madhya Pradesh)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989346
