news details |
|
|
| Court discharge accused in POCSO at stage of framing charges | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sep 2: Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Vinod Chaterji Koul discharge alleged accused namely Bodh Raj, son of Rattan Lal of Upper Barnai at the stage of framing charge who was allegedly booked by the Police Station Doman u/s 363/109/342 RPC, 11/12 POCSO.
While discharging the accused from the charges at the stage of framing charge, Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Vinod Chatterji Koul observed that as per the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 164-A Cr.P.C she has not implicated the accused in the present case. She has only deposed that as their Motorcycle had some fault and they met the accused Bodh Raj, who took them to his room and he kept them in the room and locked the room from outside and went to call the mechanic. She got frightened and made nose due to which some people of the area came there and accused Bodh Raj opened the door and they both came out.
Court further observed that the material on record including the statement of the proecutrix recorded u/s 164-A Cr.P.C do not show or suggest anywhere that the accused herein has committed any illegal act with her. The record does not contain any material of any circumstance from which it could be inferred that the accused is involved in the commission of any offence levelled against him.
Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Vinod Chatterji Koul further observed that this Court fails to understand as to how the investigating officer has implicated the accused in the present case and as to how he has come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offences punishable under sections 363/109/342 RPC, 11/12 POCSO. The present case appears to be a case of absolute non-application of mind. The investigating officer has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. He appears from the record to have been in a hurry in imposing liability upon the accused than in investigating the matter in proper manner and in the right perspective. The investigating officer has evaded and violated all the canons of criminal jurisprudence and he appears to have roped in innocent person for the commission of offence. This Court feels constrained to express its displeasure against the investigating officers who has conducted investigation of the case.
In these circumstances, Court observed that from the perusal of the documents under section 173 Cr.P.C, statements under sections 161 Cr.P.C and statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 164 A CrPC and the other material available on the file, the prosecution has failed to show the commission of offences under section 363,342,109 RPC, 11/12 POCSO disclosed to have been committed by the accused. The investigating officer has conducted the investigation in a casual manner without adopting the procedure contained in the Code and the accused in these circumstances cannot be charged for the commission of the aforesaid offences in the absence of any ground of proceeding against him and therefore, for the reasons stated hereinabove and after consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted herewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the prosecution has failed to show any sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and accordingly the accused is discharged.
The accused being so discharged is entitled to be released from the custody in the present case. A docket shall go to the Superintendent of concerned jail directing him to release the accused from custody, provided he is not involved in any other case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
