The Bombay High Court has highlighted the importance of a thorough understanding and application of the law, especially in cases involving vulnerable individuals like children
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre also underscored the need for accountability in the legal system when errors are made in sentencing. The judge's commitment to upholding the law and protecting the rights of the accused while ensuring justice for the victim.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case involves an individual named Rodu Bhaga Wagh, who is the applicant/appellant in a criminal appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The case centers around the applicant's conviction under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case was initiated based on information received from the mother of a 10-year-old girl.
A criminal case was registered which invoked sections 376(1), 376(3), 376-AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).The victim girl's statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a charge-sheet was filed after the completion of the investigation. During the trial, the Special Judge examined witnesses, including the victim girl, her mother, and a cousin sister. Medical evidence from a Gynaecologist was also presented.
The Special Judge made an inference that the victim had alleged penetrative sexual assault in her statement to the police and in the FIR, but during her oral evidence at trial, she described inappropriate touching rather than penetrative assault. The Special Judge, based on the evidence, concluded that while penetrative sexual assault was not proven, there was evidence of an attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault on the victim, along with other offenses under the IPC and the POCSO Act.
Observation of the Court:
The court expressed concerns about the sentencing of the accused, Rodu Bhaga Wagh, under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. It noted that the sentence imposed, which was three years of rigorous imprisonment, appeared to be less than the minimum punishment prescribed in the POCSO Act for the offenses in question.The court observed that there were discrepancies between the victim's initial statement to the police, which alleged penetrative sexual assault, and her oral evidence during the trial, which described inappropriate touching rather than penetrative assault.
The court raised questions about the awareness and proper application of the POCSO Act by both the prosecution and the judiciary. It emphasized the need for greater sensitivity and understanding of the special provisions of the act, especially when dealing with cases involving the protection of children from sexual offenses. The court directed the Principal Secretary of the Law and Judiciary Department to file an affidavit outlining steps to create awareness about the POCSO Act among prosecutors and judges. The court also wanted to know how accountability would be established in cases of miscarriage of justice.
The court mentioned an interim application related to the suspension of the applicant's sentence and their release on bail. The court allowed the withdrawal of the application but directed the applicant to surrender before the Special Court (POCSO Judge) by a specified date. These observations by the court highlight its concerns regarding sentencing, evidence, awareness of the POCSO Act, and the need for accountability in cases involving the protection of children from sexual offenses.
Decision of the Court:
The judge recommended that the legal system take steps to address these issues, including creating awareness about the POCSO Act among judges, prosecutors, and other stakeholders. The judge also called for an affidavit from the Principal Secretary of the Law and Judiciary Department to outline steps for addressing such errors in the future.
Case Title: Rodu Bhaga Wagh vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 2745 of 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 833 of 2022
Coram: Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.
Advocates of the Applicant: Mr. Samay Pawar , Mr. Ramnik P. Pawar
Advocate of the Respondent: Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the State, Respondent no.2.: Mr. Abbas Z Mookhtiar
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
