The Madhya Pradesh High Court answer the question that whether requesting accused not to commit rape of minor amounts to aiding accused under POCSO Act?
Facts of the case:
It was alleged that the applicant was aware of the physical violation of the minor prosecutrix, who was mentally retarded, and in spite of that, she did not take any action against Jain Baba. When the applicant saw misdeeds of Jain Baba, then instead of taking any action against the co-accused Jain Baba, she simply requested him not to do the said act. The Trial Court has framed charges under sections 16 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Submission of the Applicant:
Applicant has submitted that the allegations against her are false. The witnesses had not spoken against the applicant at the first instance, but only in the supplementary statement.
Court’s Reasoning and Judgment:
High Court held that the when the applicant had already seen the co-accused with the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix has specifically alleged that she was being ravished by the co-accused and instead of informing the local police, it is alleged that the applicant had simply requested the co-accused not to indulge himself in such an act, then it would certainly come within the definition of abetment as the act of the applicant amounts to aiding the co-accused for doing the act of rape on the prosecutrix. Further, it is well established principle of law that a roving and detailed enquiry or meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of framing of charge. Even the grave suspicion is sufficient to frame charge for trial.
Picture Source :
