SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

SUNIL THOMAS
Justin @ Renjith – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners in WP(C).No.15564 of 2017(U):Sri. V. John Sebastian Ralph, Smt. P.V. Dency, Sri. K.J. Joseph (Ernakulam), Sri. V. John Thomas, Sri. Jacob J. Anakkallunkal and Smt. Preethy Karunakaran, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1 in WP(C).No.15564 of 2017(U): Sri. Suvin R. Menon, CGC and Government Pleader
For the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in WP(C).No.15564 of 2017(U): Sri. V. Manu, Senior Govt. Pleader
For the Petitioners in Crl.MC.No.3104 of 2018:Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), Sri. Ajeesh K. Sasi, Sri. C. Jayakiran, Smt. Mitha Sudhindran, Smt. Pooja Pankaj, Sri. P.M. Rafiq, Sri. M. Revikrishnan, Sri. V.C. Sarath and Sri. Vipin Narayan, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1 in Crl.MC.No.3104 of 2018:Sri. Gilbert George Correya, Sri. Georgie Johny, Sri. Nishil P.S. and Sri. A. Velappan Nair, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.MC.No.3104 of 2018: Addl. Director General of Prosecution
Other Present: P.P. Sri. V. Manu

JUDGMENT

Sunil Thomas, J.—Petitioner in W.P(C) is the accused in S.C.No.590 of 2016 of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thrissur. He faces prosecution for offences punishable under sections 3(a), 5(b), 5(i), 5(m), 5(o), 5(u), 4, 5 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “POCSO Act”), section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The crux of the prosecution allegation was that the petitioner being the caretaker of an orphanage, sexually assaulted three inmates of the orphanage. On the basis of the information laid, Crime No.689 of 2015 was registered by the Koratty Police. After investigation, final report was laid. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent of the crime, that a close relative of the victim had assaulted them and he has been wrongly roped in. Petitioner challenges his prosecution, mainly on the ground that sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are unconstitutional, infringes his valuable right of defence and violative of Articles 14, 19, 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He prayed for striking down sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top