Karnataka High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Man Who Dropped Minor Victim At Her Home On Instructions Of Main Accused

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings launched under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) against a man who dropped the minor victim at her home on the instructions of main accused.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that Petitioner-accused was neither involved in the planning nor commission of the offence.

"The allegation is against accused Nos 1 to 4 who have allegedly been a part of the commission of offence. The petitioner was not even present during the commission of offence or in the scene of alleged crime. The petitioner comes into the picture after everything is over and only for the purpose of driving the victim back to her grand-mother’s house. No other allegation is made against the petitioner," it observed.

Petitioner was charged under Sections 363, 376, 114 and 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 5L, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act.

The bench said, “If the complaint, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, further statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. are juxtaposed to each other and read in tandem what can be unmistakably inferred is that the role of the petitioner nowhere figures before the crime, in preparation for the crime or during the crime…The petitioner emerges in the alleged episode of crime only after all the acts are over and drops the victim in the house of her grand-mother.”

The victim aged 17 years was reported missing in October 2019. The Police traced her and based on her statement the petitioner along with others came to be arrested.

The petitioner argued the allegation is entirely against accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 and he has got nothing to do with the crime; he is dragged into the web of crime only on the score of dropping the victim to her grandmother's place after all the incident was over, on the instruction of accused No.1.

The prosecution conceded that the statements rendered by the victim do not, in specific, name the petitioner. However, it contended that the offence of abetment can always be alleged against the petitioner.

Disagreeing, the bench said Section 16 of POCSO Act, which defines abetment, would indicate that if a person instigates any person to do the offence, intentionally aids for commission of the offence or employs, harbours, receives or transports a child by means of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion or abduction would become an offence under Section 17 for abetment. However, it said, facts of this case nowhere points at any offence committed by the petitioner.

"The petitioner neither aided the commission of offence employed, harboured nor transported the child by coercion by aiding the commission of crime. The commission of crime is pointed out at accused Nos. 1 to 4. Therefore, the offence under Section 17 cannot be laid against the petitioner.”

Further it turned down the contention of the prosecution that Section 114 of IPC was attracted against the accused. It said, “Section 114 of the IPC requires the abettor to be present when the offence is committed.  Therefore, the petitioner cannot even be thought of hauling for offences under Section 114 of the IPC.”

Thus, the bench quashed the proceedings qua the petitioner.

Case Title: Prasad A A And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1294 OF 2020

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 193

Date of Order: 25-05-2023

Appearance: Advocate B. LETHIF, for Petitioner.

HCGP K. P. Yashodha FOR R1;

Click Here To Read/Download Order