Trial Court Erred In Closing Evidence Upon Refusal Of Accused's Counsel To Enter Appearance: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside POCSO Conviction
Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench
Rajasthan High Court has set aside the conviction of a man (appellant) convicted by the Special POCSO Court on the grounds that when the appellant's counsel refused to appear, instead of appointing an Amicus Curiae at that instance, the trial court closed the evidence.
The division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta observed that if a counsel refused to appear for the accused, it was bounden duty of the Court to appoint Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.
The Court was hearing the criminal appeal filed by the appellant who was convicted and sentenced under the POCSO Act.
It was contended by the Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant that on account of trial court's failure to appoint an Amicus Curiae when the appellant's counsel failed to appear on his behalf, cross-examination of two main witnesses could not happen in the case.
On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the government that there was refusal on part of the appellant's counsel to cross-examine, hence, no other alternative was present with the court but to close the evidence.
The Court agreed with the submission put forth by the Amicus Curiae and highlighted that when the appellants' counsel refused to appear, the trial court closed the evidence and thereafter approached the District Legal Services Authority, for appointment of an Amicus Curiae. However, the date on which there was no advocate to represent the appellant, the evidence was closed without giving any opportunity of cross-examination to the accused.
The Court opined that it was the bounden duty of the court to appoint Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The matter was remanded back to the trial court to be decided afresh and directions were given for appointment of an Amicus Curiae for the appellant, re-summoning of the two witnesses and permitting their cross-examination.
Title: Angad v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 375