Manipur High Court
Smt. Pamnunhoih vs The State Of Manipur on 28 September, 2022
Item No. 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRIL. PETN. No. 23 of 2022
1. Smt. Pamnunhoih, aged about 30 years, w/o Mr. Letkhogin,
a resident of Churachandpur, Manipur - 795143.
2. Miss DEF, aged about 4 years, Churachandpur,
Manipur - 795143.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary
(Home), Govt. of Manipur at Imphal, Old Secretariat Building,
Babupara, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Officer in Charge of Women Police Station,
Churachandpur, Manipur - 795143.
3. The Director of Relief & Rehabilitation, Government of
Manipur at DC Complex, Lamphel - 795004.
... Respondents
B EF O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
For the petitioners : Mr. S. Thoi Thoi Meitei, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. Athouba Kh., Public Prosecutor
Date of order : 28-09-2022
ORDER
[1] By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
petitioners, being the child involved and her biological mother, sought a
direction to the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Churachandpur, to
complete the trial in Special Trial (POCSO) Case No. 01 of 2020 (Ref: FIR
No. 02(05) of 2018 WPS-CCP, under Sections 6 & 10 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012). They also sought payment of
additional interim compensation of ₹. 4,00,000/- to the child.
[2] Heard Mr. S. Thoi Thoi Meitei, learned counsel for the petitioners,
and Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the
respondents.
[3] Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Public Prosecutor, informed this
Court that Special Trial (POCSO) Case No. 1 of 2020 was disposed of by
the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Churachandpur, vide judgment and
order dated 07-07-2022. A copy of the same is also placed on record.
Perusal thereof reflects that the learned Special Judge was of the opinion
that the statements of the victim child were not reliable and trustworthy and
he accordingly acquitted the accused.
[4] The first prayer of the petitioners with regard to speedy disposal of
the case therefore stands settled. As regards the second prayer made for
payment of compensation, even if any interim order was passed with regard
to the same, the said order would stand merged with the final order, whereby
the accused was acquitted on the ground that the offence did not stand
proved.
[5] Though Mr. S. Thoi Thoi Meitei, learned counsel, would place
reliance on Rule 9(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Rules, 2020, this Court is of the opinion that the said provision does not
further his case. This Rule merely states that, even if the case ends in
acquittal or discharge, the Special Court would be entitled, either on its own
or upon an application filed by or on behalf of the victim, to recommend the
award of compensation if, in its opinion, the child has suffered loss or injury
as a result of the offence. Therefore, in the event of acquittal or discharge of
the accused on a technical ground or due to benefit of doubt, but the Special
Court finds, as a matter of fact, that the offence has been committed, the
Special Court would be entitled to exercise power for recommending award
of compensation. However, in the case on hand, the Special Court
disbelieved the statements of the victim and held that the offence itself did
not stand proved. Therefore, this was not a case where the Special Court
could invoke and exercise power under Rule 9(2) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2020. It is, however, left open to the
petitioners to seek appropriate remedies afresh in the event the judgment of
acquittal is reversed in appeal, if any.
Subject to the above observation, the criminal petition is disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Victoria
NINGOM Digitally signed
by NINGOMBAM
BAM VICTORIA
Date: 2022.09.28
VICTORIA 14:40:10 +05'30'
