Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of a 53-year-old man in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) case, citing serious violations of fair trial principles. The court found that the trial court recorded the statements of crucial prosecution witnesses in the absence of both the accused and his counsel, thereby infringing upon his fundamental right to defend himself.
Witness statements recorded in absence of accused and counsel
Justice G. Basavaraja, who heard the appeal, observed that the trial court had examined prosecution witnesses on multiple dates without ensuring the presence of either the accused or his lawyer. This, the High Court said, amounted to a procedural lapse and denied the accused a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
The judge noted that such actions were contrary to established judicial precedent, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Brijesh Kumar case, which mandates that trial courts must provide legal aid or refer the matter to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) whenever an accused is unrepresented.
Case remanded for fresh cross-examination
As a result, Justice Basavaraja remanded the case back to the trial court, directing it to allow the accused to cross-examine all material witnesses who were not tested by the defence during the earlier proceedings. The High Court further instructed that if the accused was unable to engage a lawyer, the trial court must seek assistance from the DLSA to appoint a qualified defence counsel at the State’s expense.
The court underscored that the right to a fair trial is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and that procedural fairness cannot be compromised, even in cases involving serious offences under the Pocso Act.
Background of the case
According to the prosecution, the accused, who was 50 years old at the time of the offence, allegedly lured a six-year-old girl with snacks and subsequently sexually assaulted her. The incident was reported to the Nandini Layout Police, who registered a case based on a complaint filed by the victim’s mother.
Following the investigation, the trial court convicted the man and sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a cumulative fine of ₹2.5 lakh.
Appeal on grounds of fair trial
In his appeal before the High Court, the accused argued that he had been denied the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, which he claimed violated his constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. The government advocate, in response, informed the court that there was no objection to remanding the case to allow proper cross-examination.
Justice Basavaraja noted that the records clearly showed procedural irregularities and stressed that the trial court’s failure to ensure the presence or representation of the accused vitiated the proceedings.
Next steps
The trial court will now reconvene to permit cross-examination of all key witnesses in the presence of the accused and his legal representative. The High Court has directed that proceedings be conducted expeditiously, ensuring adherence to the standards of due process and natural justice.