Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
Muhammad Iliyas, S/o Ismayil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the charge framed by the Special Court for the trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [hereinafter referred as ‘POCSO Act’ for short], Chavakkad, dated 09.07.2024 and 13.08.2024 in S.C. No.649/2024 arose out of Crime No.883/2023 of Chavakkad Police Station, Thrissur. The revision petitioner herein is the accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, at the time of admission. Perused the charge framed by the Special Court dated 09.07.2024 and 13.08.2024 and relevant materials available.
3. In this matter, after investigation of the crime, registered alleging sexual assault against a minor girl aged 4 and half years, by the driver of the school van bearing registration No.KL-46-L-2544, who used to take the minor to the school regularly, the Police filed Final Report alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 354(B) of IPC, under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act and under Sections
A Criminal Court has the discretion to frame charges based on evidence from prosecution records, regardless of the police final report.
The court upheld the framing of charges against the applicant for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, emphasizing the sufficiency of prima facie evidence at the charge stage.
At the charge stage, only a prima facie case is required; minor delays in reporting sexual offences do not discredit the victim's account.
Charges must be framed with specific details of time, place, and particulars as mandated by the Cr.P.C., and failure to comply constitutes a serious procedural breach.
The court confirmed that allegations of sexual assault against a minor teacher constitute a prima facie case under the POCSO Act, warranting trial.
The court established that at the charge framing stage, a strong suspicion of guilt suffices to proceed, without requiring proof of the allegations.
At the stage of framing charges, the truth, veracity, and the effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously examined, and strong suspicion is enough to frame a charge. The court is required to ev....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
