The Karnataka High Court has expressed serious concern over a POCSO case that has remained pending for nearly 12 years, observing that such delays defeat the very purpose of the law meant to protect children. While refusing to interfere with the trial court's decision not to summon a Magistrate who recorded the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court directed the Special Court to conclude the trial within eight weeks.
Background of the Case
The writ petition was filed by the de facto complainant challenging an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for POCSO Cases, Bengaluru Rural. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate who recorded the child victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC should be summoned because the statement allegedly did not bear the signatures of either the child or the Magistrate.
The criminal case arose from a complaint registered in 2014 alleging sexual assault on a six-year-old child. The charge sheet was filed under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, but the trial remained pending for over a decade.
Court's Observations
Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the law does not require a child victim to sign a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The Court also found that neither the POCSO Act nor Section 164 makes the Magistrate's signature an indispensable condition for the validity of such a statement in the manner argued by the petitioner.
Referring to earlier judicial precedents, the Court observed that Magistrates who record statements under Section 164 should not be summoned as witnesses in a routine manner merely because procedural doubts are raised.
The Court observed,
"The judicial act of recording a statement under Section 164 of the Code enjoys a presumption of regularity, and the sanctity attached to such proceedings cannot be lightly diluted by routinely compelling judicial officers to enter the witness box."
Addressing the prolonged delay, the Court remarked that the trial had drifted far beyond the timeline contemplated under the POCSO Act.
The bench observed,
"What has unfolded thereafter is a tragedy that ought not to have found a place in the administration of criminal justice."
It further noted that a child victim had remained "captive" to the criminal justice process for over ten years because of repeated adjournments.
The Court also emphasized that the POCSO Act expects trials to be completed within one year and criticized the culture of unnecessary adjournments, observing that such delays undermine both the statute and the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.
Decision
Disposing of the writ petition, the Karnataka High Court directed the Special Court to conclude the pending POCSO trial within eight weeks from the receipt of the order. The Court clarified that the timeline is mandatory, not merely aspirational, and instructed both parties to cooperate in ensuring the expeditious completion of the proceedings.
It further observed that the Special Court would be free to reject unnecessary adjournment requests and adopt all lawful measures to comply with the direction.
