Victim's Copy Of Chargesheet: Who Will Bear The Charge - Special Court (POCSO)/Ld. Magistrate Or The Police, Under Section 25(2) Of POCSO Act?

The persons acting as guardians for or in respect of welfare or concern towards the child victim somehow glue their eyes with intensified hurry, unknowingly hoping for a swift dispensation of justice, probably under the belief of the unsaid sketchy mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (as amended from time to time and as in force) and hereinafter be called as 'POCSO Act' in short for all purposes, however for a distant reality in actual. It has never been easy to extract the same or similar kind of justice propagated by the book law contained in our statutes for myriad reasons, and yes, special laws are no different.

Although our Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') does provide for the definition of a 'victim' under clause (wa) of Section 2, but somehow misses the concept of sacrifice embedded in the Latin word 'Victima' through which the term 'victim' is found derived, however still the victim being the usual originator to set the criminal process in motion, occupies an uncomfortable position in the criminal justice system. The Apex Court in the matter of Rattiram & Ors. v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 516, did somehow emphasize on the issue of protection of victims' rights by briefly giving a contextual idea:

"Criminal jurisprudence, with the passage of time, has laid emphasis on victimology which fundamentally is a perception of a trial from the view point of the criminal as well as the victim. Both are viewed in the social context. The view of the victim is given due regard and respect in certain countries. It is the duty of the court to see that the victims' right is protected."

The captioned issue, which is sought to be dealt with herein, had its unknown and slippery identification during a criminal trial being attended by the author in the capacity of representing the child victim before the Hon'ble Special Court (POCSO) in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Although in the background, the life of child post commission of grave offences against him moves in dark, the story moves with the investigating officer filing the chargesheet directly in the Hon'ble Special Court (POCSO) and while taking the cognizance of the offences specified therein, the hon'ble court directs the IO to supply a copy of the charge-sheet and documents related to this case to the complainant free of cost and to file a compliance report in this regard by the next date. The victim/complainant is clueless being the passive characters of the story and while living in another world waiting for justice, on the next date, copy of charge-sheet is supplied to the accused against receipt on the last order sheet, with matter being put for arguments on the point of charge on another date. The matter gets dragged on for longer more dates due to unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic and upon application for treating the matter as urgent being filed, the same got revived with usual wait for compliance concerning the free of cost provisioning of the chargesheet. The Hon'ble Special Court (POCSO) does it bit by duly issuing notice to the IO and SHO concerned, and within next two dates as it happens usually, the Investigating Officer ensures the supply of the copy of chargesheet to the family of the victim child and not to their representative counsel. In the whole process spanning over about five (5) months, the counsel for the victim did obtain the certified copy of the chargesheet at the very outset, against the applicable charges and ensures competent participation in the criminal proceedings, pending to see the start of the actual trial.

Although the story is plain without any hiccups being found by any stakeholder, but yes, there are legal and social issues involved, which are attempted to be structured in the following questions:

1. Whether sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the POCSO Act entails 'Free of Cost' provisioning to the child and his parents or his representative, of document specified under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedures (hereinafter be called 'Cr.P.C.'), upon the final report being filed by the police under section 173 of Cr.P.C.?

2. Whether sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the POCSO Act encompasses 'the child and his parents' as one unit for provisioning of document specified under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedures (hereinafter be called 'Cr.P.C.'), upon the final report being filed by the police under section 173 of Cr.P.C.?

3. Who is obligated to bear the charge i.e. Hon'ble Special Court (POCSO)/Ld. Magistrate or the Police, of provisioning to the child and his parents or his representative, of document specified under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedures (hereinafter be called 'Cr.P.C.'), upon the final report being filed by the police under section 173 of Cr.P.C., in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the POCSO Act?

Before adverting our attention to the above delineated issues as contained in the structured questions herein above, since the POCSO Act has for the very first time recognized and embedded the much required provision of explicitly assuming victim's participation as a significant stakeholder in the criminal justice system through provision of copy of documents specified under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. along with ensuring competent legal representation as per Sections 25(2) and 40 of the POCSO Act respectively, one should remain cognizant of such conspicuous absence of the provision in the Cr.P.C. and other statutes for victims of crimes and what might be the probable cause of such change being incorporated needs a deeper look.

Internationally, on 29 November 1985, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. The concerned declaration aimed at treating victims with compassion and to ensure their dignity along with this prompt redress for the harm they suffered was highlighted. It was pointed out in the concerned resolution that a reform is needed in criminal justice system and a system needs to be prepared for reparation and services that will assist victim for their recovery. Relying upon the said resolution, a handbook was prepared titled Handbook on Justice for Victims. The following lines from the book highlights the duty of the state to provide information regarding the case at every stage.

"(c) Informing the victim of developments in the case Victim involvement in decision-making also requires that victims be kept aware of developments in the case, in particular on decisions taken. Some jurisdictions encourage the police officer investigating the case to ask the victim if he or she wishes to be kept informed of the progress of the case; if so, a notation is made in the file for the attention of the prosecutor. As long as the case is being dealt with by the police, this agency should be responsible for informing the victim of the progress of the case. This responsibility is passed on to the prosecutor along with the file of the case. In some jurisdictions, in the case of serious crimes (such as rape and homicide), the prosecutor must invite the victim or the family of the victim for a personal discussion, during which the decisions to be made are explained. Research on victim notification indicates that victims who are kept informed by authorities feel that they had an opportunity to express their wishes, that their wishes were taken into consideration by the authorities and that they had some degree of influence over the outcome of the case."

Right from the United States Attorney's office providing service for victims under the name of Victim Witness Assistance Unit (VWAU) to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (S.C. 2015, c. 13, s. 2), The Victims' Rights Act 2002 in New Zealand, Code of Practices for Victims of Crime in United Kingdom, the genesis lies in the victim's fundamental right to know which can be understood through the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of R.P Limited v Indian Express Newspaper 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 212, wherein it was observed that people in general have a right to know in order to be able to take part in a participatory development of the industrial life and democracy. The Hon'ble Court further observed that the right to know was a basic right to which citizens of a country are free to aspire in the broad ambit of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. That in the matter of People's Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India AIR 2004 SC 1442, the right to information was further elevated to the status of a human right which is necessary for making governance transparent and accountable. Furthermore, in the matter of G. Ramados V. State of Maurai Crl. RC(MD) No. 495 of 2016, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that "As per Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 303 Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused is entitled to have documents to put effective defence. But the de facto complainant is not going to defend. Actually, he will prosecute the accused whether it is a police case or a private case. However, a complainant is the real victim and the police are only de jure complainants. Hence, a party to a criminal case can seek any part of the criminal court's record provided he gives reasons for the same and satisfies the court that he will not misuse the documents." Accordingly, as a necessary corollary to the same, right to get chargesheet, whether or not, free of cost, by the victim of crime is an extension of right to know, as being safely understood to proceed further, which is incorporated in the POCSO Act for the very first time.

The provisions contained in Section 25 of the POCSO Act as well Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. are reproduced herein below for ready reference but may have to be interpreted by comprehending the actual and relative importance of terms and phrases contained therein, vis-à-vis the practical implications:

25. Recording of statement of a child by Magistrate. —

(2) The Magistrate shall provide to the child and his parents or his representative, a copy of the document specified under section 207 of the Code, upon the final report being filed by the police under section 173 of that Code.

- emphasis supplied

207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. —

In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:-

(i) the police report;

(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;

(iii) the statements recorded under sub- section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub- section (6) of section 173;

(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;

(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub- section (5) of section 173: Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused: Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court.

The term 'Magistrate' as employed in the section is placed upon the belief as against the present practice that the jurisdictional learned Metropolitan Magistrate or the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) who receives the First Information Reports registered invoking any of the sections under the POCSO Act, through the concerned Police Station as mandated under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C., also finds the filing of final report i.e. chargesheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. by the concerned Investigating Officer in his or her court. Although the former is true unless otherwise ordered, however the latter is very much found inapplicable, at least in the National Capital Territory of Delhi where the Hon'ble Special Courts (POCSO) as designated under Section 28 of the POCSO Act invariably receives the chargesheet at the first instance as being filed by the concerned Investigating Officer. Therefore, the practical implication may not allow the learned magistrate to ensure compliance with Section 25 of the POCSO Act and to thereafter commit the case under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. to the concerned Hon'ble Sessions Court being the Hon'ble Special Court (POCSO), post taking cognizance due to explicit restriction created by sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act in respect of taking such cognizance by the Special Court (POCSO).

The phrase 'shall provide' as is appearing after the term 'Magistrate', prima facie obligates the learned Metropolitan Magistrate or the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) or the Hon'ble Special Court (POCSO), as the case may be, to ensure provision of the document specified under section 207 of the Code, to the 'child and his parents or his representative', however whether such provision as understood by the term 'provide' duly requires creation of copy of document filed as such by the Investigating Officer, is a matter demanding clarity. Although, as witnessed, the Hon'ble Courts in the National Capital Territory of Delhi are found provided with reasonably big photocopy/xerox machine (Canon IR-3530/IR-2530W), whether on standalone per individual court basis or on sharing basis with other courts, there being no occasion arises which indicate non-availability of infrastructure as may be so intended, which prevents creation of copy for ensuring compliance with the statutory mandate. Another line of though points out towards the 'Origin Theory' whereby the originator of the document concerned is liable to provide copies of the same, as may be pre-determined or otherwise ordered to be so filed considering the number of parties as shall be likely or should actually have the possession of such document during such legal proceedings. The statutory local police, being the usual investigating agency, which bears the responsibility to file the final report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. through the concerned Investigating Officer cannot be allowed to forget or self-exempt itself to file an additional copy of document for the victim in any manner, if the mandate is understood rightly in conjunction with sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the POCSO Act.

The phrase 'child and his parents or his representative' has been used as two separate units independently but understandably as surplusage in technical terms. There are noted data statistics which have indicated in several cases that father of the child is found as the primary accused while in others, some or other family member is so found in commission of offences under the POCSO Act. The term 'parents' exclusively caters to father or mother, though including step-father and step-mother but otherwise excludes the variable amplitude of the term 'family' or 'guardian' appearing in Section 40 of the Act calling for due legal representation of the victim. That being said, the latter may bring within itself the term 'representative' as a matter of larger import, but since the Act caters to a child who is below the biological age of 18 years, serving the copy of the documents mentioned in Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. might not have been the intent of the legislature and therefore the first set comprising of 'child and his parents' must be used so as to provide the necessary documents to the actual victim and nearest victim of crime. However, the term 'representative' must be understood to be either a person in which a child reposes 'trust and confidence' or a legal counsel duly appointed for such victim child, and as such being in the knowledge of the learned magistrate or the Hon'ble Special Court (POCSO) to ensure material compliance of Section 25 of the Act.

The term 'copy' as used in the section, does not point out towards a xerox copy, originally prepared copy, true copy or certified copy and also does not provide whether the same is to provided free of cost, although Section 207 of Cr.P.C. explicitly mentions the provision of document free of cost to the accused. Can the victim be placed at a level anywhere lower than that of an accused in the criminal justice system, specifically when the issue concerns a child victim, the answer should always be an unwavering 'No', however the legislature is at patent fault in allowing this discrepancy to wade through the provision, besides others.

In pursuance of the analysis carried out herein above, an interesting matter is being studied which came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in re Minor P Represented By Her Father Vs. State W.P. (Crl.) 3822/2018 wherein the Hon'ble Court held the following:

"3. A perusal of sub-Section (2) of Section 25 clearly shows that the Magistrate is mandated to provide to the child/parents/guardians copy of the documents as specified under Section 207 Cr.P.C. upon the final report being filed. Sub-Clause (2) of Section 25 imposing a mandate on the Magistrate to provide a copy of the charge sheet learned Metropolitan Magistrate could not have asked for expenses from the complainant/victim in the FIR in question.

4. Though the issue looks trivial but it affects the rights of a victim as a victim cannot pursue trial effectively for not being in possession of the charge-sheet and the documents filed therewith. It is for this reason that Section 25(2) of POCSO Act mandates the court concerned to provide the charge-sheet and all documents supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Once the Act imposes a mandate to supply the documents, no charge can be directed to be levied. Thus, in view of the mandate, the charges levied by the Registry of Tis Hazari Court are uncalled for as the petitioner has a right to get the documents as supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. free of cost.

5. Petition is disposed of directing the refund of ₹340/- as deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of Tis Hazari Court.

6. Copy of this order be circulated to all the courts dealing with matters under POCSO Act with the direction to provide copies of the charge-sheet and all documents therewith which the accused is entitled under Section 207 Cr.P.C. simultaneously or at an immediate convenient date to the victim/complainant as well."

- emphasis supplied

The Hon'ble Court briefly interpreted the Section 25 of the POCSO Act to hold that the provision imposed a mandate on the Magistrate to provide to the child/parents/guardians, the copy of charge-sheet and all documents which are otherwise supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and accordingly held that no charge can be directed to be levied since it affects the rights of a victim as a victim cannot pursue trial effectively for not being in possession of the charge-sheet and the documents filed therewith. Besides ushering a victim welfare measure, the Hon'ble Court directed all the courts dealing with matters under POCSO Act to ensure such compliance, simultaneously or at an immediate convenient date to the victim/complainant as well. Now, the author contemplates that the only issue being solved with the assistance of the judgement is the clarity over free of cost provision of the document specified under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. to the victim and his parents or his representative as per the mandate of Section 25 of the Act, however the specific mode and manner in which the same is to be executed is still left to be practiced by individual courts in their best judgement analysis and wisdom as to be selectively ensured. In the story mentioned at the outset, the concerned Hon'ble Special Court (POCSO) decided to invest multiple hearings to ensure compliance through issuance of court notices and/or show cause notices to the Investigating Officer and the Station House Officer, while conducting other regular business relating to the matter concerned, while in some other courts dealing with matters under POCSO Act, it has been seen that upon failure of the concerned Investigating Officer to supply documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to the victim as per Section 25(2) of the Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Special Court (POCSO) requires the Investigating Officer to spend charges of photocopying from his or her own pocket to deliver the copy thereof to the victim the same day in the court and direct the officer concerned to secure reimbursement of the same through the office of the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police and to file the report by the next date. Seldom, do we find that the concerned courts make use of the Xerox machines available in the courtrooms to get the cop(ies) made and served upon the victims, whether they being present in the court or through the process server because as understood, in their perspective, the liability to create such copy lies upon the concerned Investigating Officer while the responsibility to see the compliance thereof rests upon the courts.

Conclusion : The author humbly believes that in order to achieve practice of standard operating procedure being implemented in ensuring compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the POCSO Act, the most feasible and beneficial interpretation would be an issuance of practice direction from the Hon'ble Juvenile Justice Committee of the concerned High Court, as shall be applicable for the courts dealing with matters under the POCSO Act. The said practice direction must invariably require the concerned Investigating Officer to ensure filing of additional sets of true copies of the original/supplementary final report/chargesheet containing all annexures therewith duly paginated and indexed considering the number of victims and accused persons besides one for the prosecution, while filing the original/supplementary final report/chargesheet in the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court or the Special Court (POCSO). Then only, it should be obligated upon the presiding officer of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court or the Special Court (POCSO) where such filing of final report is done, to effect provision of such documents as filed, free of cost to the victims and accused persons besides the prosecution, during the court proceedings or otherwise through the process server.

The intention behind the obligation to oversee and to effect compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the POCSO Act through the Hon'ble Courts is to ensure bonafide not only of the process but of the documents by adding a layer of scrutiny coupled with independence which would prevent probable chances of misadventures otherwise attempted by the investigating agency, if any and ever. That further, the same shall aid to speedy trial and reassurance to the stakeholders in the criminal proceedings in some manner, if not already accustomed or acquainted to it through any such previous experiences. The significant issue of provision of documents filed as original or supplementary final report, to the prosecution agency through such procedure is the unique status of the learned prosecutor in our criminal justice system as has been held in the following words of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the matter of Babu v. State of Kerala 1984 Cr LJ 499:

"Public Prosecutors are really Ministers of Justice whose job is none other than assisting the State in the administration of justice. They are not representatives of any party. Their job is to assist the Court by placing before the Court all relevant aspects of the case. They are not there to see the innocent sent to the gallows; they are also not there to see the culprits escape conviction."

It can be safely concluded that, besides the above suggestive course of action, the law presently intends that the jurisdictional Magistrate Court or the Special Court (POCSO) bears the charge or otherwise remains obligated to ensure free of cost provision of document specified under section 207 of Cr.P.C. to the child and his parents or his representative in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the POCSO Act, the copy whereof along with the original copy of final report being pre-filed in the concerned court by the Investigating Officer, before the same is accepted for registration of a case as instituted upon the police report for carrying out further legal proceedings in any manner. However, the legislature's error of missing out on the use of the phrase 'free of cost' in sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the POCSO Act, might require the helping hand of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or otherwise several Hon'ble High Courts to see due implementation across the country and not just the capital city of Delhi.

The author is an advocate at High Court of Delhi and District Courts-Delhi NCR. He primarily practices in the areas of Access to Justice, Access to Information (RTI), Criminal Laws, Child Rights, Education and Consumer Laws and engages in public policy matters. He can be reached at contact@blackrobeslegal.com.Views are personal.