'One Day Trial' In POCSO Case : Supreme Court Affirms HC Order For Fresh Trial After Setting Aside Conviction
The Supreme Court (on March 01) affirmed the Patna High Court's order of a 'De-novo' trial in a matter where the accused's trial, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, was concluded in 'one day.' The High Court, in its judgment, noted that the Trial Court had shown 'ugly haste.'The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan....
The Supreme Court (on March 01) affirmed the Patna High Court's order of a 'De-novo' trial in a matter where the accused's trial, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, was concluded in 'one day.' The High Court, in its judgment, noted that the Trial Court had shown 'ugly haste.'
The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
To understand, the prosecution's stance is that the accused, by enticing the victim, a female child of eight years, took her to the shop and then to the 'Bagaan.' Therein, the appellant allegedly had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim. Imperatively, upon taking the cognizance, the Trial Court, on the next day itself, framed the charges. The accused was not granted an opportunity to address the Trial Court on framing the charge against him. The judgment, convicting the accused, was also passed on the same date while noting:
“It is not out of place to mention here that the case in hand has been disposed of within one day of its opening i.e. framing of charge.”
The High Court, however, passed an order of remand after setting aside the conviction order. It noted that there has been a blatant disregard for the principles of natural justice as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“Ugly hurry in recording evidence of prosecution immediately on the very same day after framing of the charge, particularly, when the accused is an under trial prisoner would defeat the ends of justice and can cause prejudice to both the parties.”
Assailing this order, the original petitioner filed this present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. The Division bench, however, affirmed the view taken by the High Court. While doing so, the Court also directed the Special Court to fix a date for the recording of evidence and follow the Criminal Procedure, 1973 provisions 'in its true letter and spirit.'
“On the aforesaid date, the Special Court will also grant time of only one week to the second respondent to appoint an Advocate of his choice. On his failure to do so, the learned Advocate, who was already appointed to espouse the cause of the second respondent, will continue to represent the second respondent.,” the Court further directed.
Before parting, the Court extended the Police protection provided to the appellant, witnesses in the case, the members of the family, and the Prosecutrix till the disposal of the trial.
Case : Bablu Yadav v. State of Bihar
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC)