[POCSO Act] MP High Court Upholds Closure Of Rights Of Accused To Cross-Examine Prosecutrix Owing To Their Dilatory Tactics
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently upheld the decision of the trial court to close the rights of the accused in POCSO case noting that they were indulging in dilatory tactics to defer the minor Prosecutrix from testifying. Rejecting the application of the Applicants/accused to grant them one last opportunity to cross-examine the Prosecutrix, Justice G.S....
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently upheld the decision of the trial court to close the rights of the accused in POCSO case noting that they were indulging in dilatory tactics to defer the minor Prosecutrix from testifying.
Rejecting the application of the Applicants/accused to grant them one last opportunity to cross-examine the Prosecutrix, Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed that their behavior before the lower court manifested an oblique motive to defeat the purpose of criminal trial-
Thus, when the prayer for deferring the cross-examination of a witness is made with an oblique motive to defeat the basic purposes of criminal trial, then if the right of the accused is closed for cross-examining such a witness, then only the accused or his counsel are responsible for creating such an unwarranted and unpleasant situation. Accordingly, looking to the conduct of the applicants and their counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interfering in the matter.
Facts of the case were that the Applicants were accused in a POCSO case and were facing trial before the lower court. Vide the impugned order, the trial court had closed the rights of the Applicants to cross-examine the Prosecutrix noting that their Counsel didn't seem to be interested in questioning her. Aggrieved, the Applicant moved an application before the Court under Section 482 CrPC praying that they be allowed to cross-examine the Prosecutrix.
The Applicants submitted before the Court that their case would suffer irreparable loss if they did not get the opportunity to cross-examine the Prosecutrix. They further pointed out that it was their Counsel that sought for an adjournment and that they never instructed him to do so. Therefore, it was prayed that they be granted one last opportunity to cross-examine the Prosecutrix.
Per contra, the State argued that the Applicants along with their Counsel were trying to create all kinds of hurdles to prevent the Prosecutrix from testifying. It was asserted that they cannot be allowed to hijack the proceedings before the trial court as the same would be violative of the provisions under Section 33 and 35 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, it was submitted that they cannot be permitted to harass the minor victim and thus, it was prayed that their application be rejected.
Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the arguments put forth by the State. It noted that the Applicants were adopting impermissible tactics to delay the trial. Regarding the conduct of the Counsel for the Applicants before the trial court, the Court opined that the Applicants may exercise their rights to approach the Bar. However, they cannot be extended the benefit of the alleged act of their Counsel to harass the minor victim-
If the counsel for the applicants was seeking adjournment on his own contrary to their instructions, then either they should have changed their counsel or they have a right to approach the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh for professional misconduct of their counsel, but the minor prosecutrix cannot be allowed to be harassed by the accused persons by adopting such impermissible tactics.
With the aforesaid observations, the Court decided to not interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
Case Title: Shadab Ansari & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 282