Kerala High Court Orders Counselling For Cousins Falsely Accused In POCSO Case, Calls State To Implement Guidelines To Prevent Misuse
The Kerala High Court has allowed the bail applications moved by two boys aged 19 and 20 years old, cousins of a 17-year-old girl who lodged a false POCSO case against them for objecting to her love affair.
The petitioners were alleged to have committed rape, sexual assault and outraging the modesty of women. The crime was registered against them alleging commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(3), 509 and 451 of the IPC and Sections 3(a) read with 4(2), 5(l) r/w 6(1), 11(i) read with 12 of the POCSO Act.
Justice C S Dias referred to the Apex Court decision in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar & Anr that laid down directions to prevent unnecessary arrest and casual detention of an accused. The Court thus directed all stakeholders involved in the judicial process to exercise caution and held that the State Government must come up with guidelines to prevent misuse of provisions of the POCSO Act.
“In such sensitive cases, it is imperative that all stakeholders, including the Courts and the Police, approach the matter with sensitivity, care and caution before resorting to extreme steps in the matter. I leave it to the best wisdom of the State to determine and implement appropriate safeguards, checks, barriers and guidelines in cases of this nature, drawing upon the principles laid down in the landmark decision in Arnesh Kumar (supra).”
The petitioners submitted affidavits of the victim and her father before the Court stating that disputes between the parties had been settled. The victim submitted that the petitioners were innocent and that they had not committed any offence.
The victim stated in her affidavit that she filed a false case against the petitioners out of her anger for objecting to her love affair with her classmate. The petitioners informed the victim's mother about her love affair who stopped her schooling. The victim's father also submitted that he was unaware of the complaint lodged by his daughter.
The Court stated that the present case demonstrates how provisions of the POCSO Act were misused to implicate innocent persons in false cases. Section 22(2) of the POCSO Act explicitly protects minors from prosecution for false complaints or information. The Court noted that the petitioners were arrested and detained in judicial custody since May 30, 2024, all for objecting to the love affair of the victim who was their sister.
The Court said, “What wrong have the petitioners done, and who is to compensate them for their wrongful confinement, mental agony, trauma and pain they have endured? These are all matters that warrant a thorough examination and resolution.”
The Court stated that the POCSO Act is a comprehensive legislation that ensures the safety, security and protection of children with child friendly procedures. However, the Court stated that there is an increasing trend to misuse provisions of the POCSO Act.
Referring to the decision of the court in Suhara and Others v. Muhammed Jaleel, XXX v State of Kerala and XXX v State of Kerala, the court pointed out that there were increasing number of false child sexual abuse cases filed against the father by mother by misusing the POSCO Act, and such cases must be handled by Family Courts with caution when there matrimonial or custody cases between the parents.
The Court went on to state that due caution, diligence and prudence must be exercised before arresting an accused based on a complaint by blood relatives and family members of a minor victim. The Court stated that this is because POCSO Act provisions are misused by family members to make unfounded allegations against other family members out of anger without understanding its consequences.
As such, the Court allowed the bail application of the petitioners. The Court further directed the Investigating Officer to consult with the District Probation Officer to take the petitioners to an expert for counselling.
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates P M Arun Das, K Arun, C.A.Chacko, C.M.Charisma, Babu V.P., Vishnu S. Mullappally
Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Bibin Varghese, Megha K Xavier, Public Prosecutor C S Hrithwik, Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha M K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 5168 OF 2024, BAIL APPL. NO. 5425 OF 2024