IN RE ALARMING RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED CHILD RAPE INCIDENTS vs .

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 2330

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
IN RE ALARMING RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED CHILD RAPE INCIDENTS - Petitioners
SMW (Crl.) No(s).1/2019
IA No. 135383/2019 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 132386/2019 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 132388/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 135376/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 132359/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 135378/2019 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON)
Decided On : 06-09-2019

Advocates Appeared:
By Courts Motion, AOR : Mr. S.S. Rathi, Registrar, Supreme Court of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv., Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv., Ms. Neela Gokhale, Adv., Ms. Shruti Dixit, Adv., Mr. Ilam Paridi, ADv., Ms. Shradha Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Bub Das, AOR, Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. Prem Sunder Jha, AOR, Mr. Rajyavardhan Visen, Adv., Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR, Ms. Garima Prasad, Adv., Mr. Pranav Kaashyap, Adv., Ms. Rishi Raj Sharma, Adv., Saumya Jay Karan Singh, Adv., Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Adv., Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Ms. S. Shankar, Adv., Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, AOR, Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR, Mr. Suhaan , Adv., Ms. Kajal Dalal, Adv., Mr. Amit Verma, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv., Mr. Naveen Kumar, Adv., M/s. PLR Chambers & Co., AOR,
Intervenor-in-person, AOR, Mr. R. Rama Krishna Reddy, Adv., Ms. Poonam Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Gagan Deep Kaur, Adv., Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv., Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv., Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv., Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Adv., Mr. Divyansh Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Shourajeet Chakravarty, Adv., Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv., Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv., Ms. Akshara Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR, Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR, Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, AOR

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 173 – Chargesheet - CBI investigation - CBI seeks two more weeks time to complete investigation in R.C. No.12 of 2019 have gone through report of CBI, accept submission and extend time by two weeks - Accused has also filed an application and according to him in trial in R.C. No.8 of 2018 he would like to confront prosecution witnesses with statements recorded by investigating authority in R.C. No. - It is but obvious that it is for Trial Court to decide whether it is necessary to confront witnesses with previous statements or not – Held, On the larger issue with regard to the setting up of exclusive POCSO Courts, in all districts where there are more than 100 cases pending, Solicitor General prays for another three weeks time to file a report. As prayed, List - Court find that when we requested Mr. Giri to assist as Amicus Curiae there was a mistake in not appointing Advocate-on-Record to assist him - Therefore, Court appoint Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi and Ms. Uttara Babbar as Advocates-on-Record – Order accordingly.

ORDER :

1. Pursuant to our direction dated 02.09.2019 the District & Sessions Judge (West) has submitted his report. We have carefully gone through the report and we find that the District & Sessions Judge has indeed moved with great efficiency and alacrity in proceeding with the cases. He has, however, prayed for some more time in each of the cases. We accept the request of the District & Sessions Judge and grant extension as requested by him. We also make it clear that if the District & Sessions Judge finds it realistically impossible to complete the trial during the extended period also he is at liberty to move this Court for further extension of time. We also found in the report of the District & Sessions Judge that he has requested the High Court of Delhi for permission to hold Court at AIIMS for the purpose of recording the statement of the witnesses. We request the High Court of Delhi to take appropriate decision in the matter at the earliest.

2. The CBI seeks two more weeks' time to complete the investigation in R.C. No.12 of 2019. We have gone through the report of the CBI, we accept the submission and extend the time by two weeks.

3. Learned counsel for the CBI states that in R.C. No.11 of 2018 the chargesheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. will be filed within two weeks from today.

4. Learned counsel for the accused has also filed an application and according to him in the trial in R.C. No.8 of 2018 he would like to confront the prosecution witnesses with the statements recorded by the investigating authority in R.C. No.11 of 2018. It is but obvious that it is for the Trial Court to decide whether it is necessary to confront the witnesses with the previous statements or not. If it comes to the conclusion that confrontation is necessary then the Trial Court may defer the cross-examination of the witnesses till the filing of the chargesheet in R.C. No.11 of 2018 and if any further time is required by the Trial Court to complete the trial, it may file an application in this behalf to this Court for extension of time.

5. On the larger issue with regard to the setting up of exclusive POCSO Courts, in all districts where there are more than 100 cases pending, the Solicitor General prays for another three weeks time to file a report. As prayed, List on 25.09.2019.

6. We find that when we requested Mr. Giri to assist as Amicus Curiae there was a mistake in not appointing Advocate-on-Record to assist him. Therefore, we appoint Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi and Ms. Uttara Babbar as Advocates-on-Record.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document