Rajasthan HC overturns POCSO verdict

Rajasthan High Court set aside the conviction of a man (appellant) convicted by the Special Court of POCSO on the ground that when the appellant’s counsel refused to appear, instead of appointing an Amicus Curiae in that instance, the trial court suppressed the evidence.

Division Bench Judge Pankaj Bhandari And Judge Shubha Mehta noted that if a lawyer refuses to appear in defense of the accused, the Court is required to appoint an Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the appellant, who was found guilty and sentenced under the POCSO Act.

Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant argued that due to the trial court’s failure to appoint an Amicus Curiae when appellant’s counsel failed to appear on his behalf, the cross-examination of the two key witnesses in the case could not take place.

On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the Government that the counsel for the appellant refused to cross-examine him, therefore, the court had no alternative but to suppress the evidence.

The Court agreed with the Amicus Curiae’s argument and emphasized that when appellants’ counsel refused to appear, the trial court suppressed the evidence and thereafter applied to the District Legal Services Office for the appointment of an Amicus Curiae. However, on that day, when there was no lawyer present to represent the appellant, the evidence was suppressed without giving the accused an opportunity for cross-examination.

The court concluded that it was the duty of the court to appoint an Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and overturned the sentence. The case was remanded to the trial court for a new decision and directions were given to file an Amicus Curiae for the appellant, re-call the two witnesses and allow their cross-examination.

Heading: Angad v. State of Rajasthan

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 375

Click here to read/download order