Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
RICHARD THOMAS S/O THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The accused in S.C. No. 370/2021 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘POCSO Act’ hereinafter), Kottayam, has filed this Crl. M.C. under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita challenging Annexure 1, viz. Order in Crl. M.P. No. 339/2024 dated 04.10.2022.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the order impugned and the relevant provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short ‘Disabilities Act, 2016’ hereinafter).
3. While impeaching the veracity of Annexure 1 order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim in this case is a differently abled person with 50% disability. Therefore, in view of the mandate under Section 84 of the Disabilities Act, 2016, the offences in this crime shall be tried by a Special Court constituted under Section 84 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Special Court under the POCSO Act has no jurisdiction to try the case. It is pointed out that though this contention was raised before the trial court by filing Crl. M.P. No. 339/2024
The court established that jurisdiction under the Disabilities Act is limited to specific offences, and the trial court's jurisdiction under the IPC was valid.
The Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act cannot take direct cognizance of offences under the IPC without prior committal by a Magistrate, aligning with the hierarchy of c....
The court affirmed that under Section 86(4) of the JJ Act, all relevant offences must be tried by the Children's Court, invalidating prior proceedings in the Magistrate's Court.
:• Testimony of a prosecutrix with a disability, or of a disabled witness for that matter, cannot be considered weak or inferior, only because such an individual interacts with the world in a differe....
The court upheld the need for further examination of evidence under Section 311 Cr.P.C to ensure proper understanding of the victim's evidence.
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
