IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Mr. Lalsuonglien & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Manipur represented by the Additional Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur - Respondent
Crl. Petn. No. 7 of 2019
Decided On : 02-08-2019
Section 482 - Direction for Speedy Trial and Interim Compensation - POCSO Act, 2012, Section 377, 34 IPC - 35(2) of POCSO Act - The court directed the Juvenile Justice Board to expedite the trial and awarded interim compensation to the victims in a case involving unnatural sexual assault under Section 377, 34 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought direction for the expedited trial and interim compensation for their minor children who were victims of unnatural sexual assault. The trial was delayed, and the victims were in need of immediate compensation and counseling.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial was unduly delayed and the victims were entitled to interim compensation. It also highlighted the provisions of the POCSO Act, emphasizing the need for child-friendly mechanisms, speedy trial, and compensation for victims.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Juvenile Justice Board should be directed to expedite the trial and award interim compensation to the victims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012, and the directions of the Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India to emphasize the need for speedy trial and disposal of cases under the POCSO Act. It also considered the gravity of the offence and the victims' need for immediate financial assistance.
Final Decision: The court directed the Juvenile Justice Board to complete the trial within three months on a day-to-day basis and ordered the State to pay interim compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs each to the victims.
JUDGMENT :
The petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction on the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur to expedite and conclude the trial/criminal case within a time frame in F.I.R. No.102 (12) 2015 CCP – PS under Section 377, 34 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act.
2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners are natural fathers of the minor victims viz., (1) Henry Lalsunthang, aged about 11 years; (2) Ebenezer, aged about 9 years; (3) Jack Lalkhanisiam, aged about 10 years; (4) Maurice Hrangminglien, aged about 9 years and (5) Darmingthang, aged about 9 years respectively. On 28.12.2015, at around 12.00 noon, while the victims were playing with their locality friends at the house of one Jipson Hrangte at Vengthlang Rengkai, Churachandpur, three elder boys (Juveniles in conflict of law) took the victims near the bamboo groove at the back of the said house and raped them one by one by inserting penis in their anus, thereby committed the act of sodomy. After committing sodomy, the three Juveniles in conflict of law left the place and threatened them not to disclose the said incident to their parents or else, they will be beaten up.
3. According to the petitioners, one of the minor victims, unable to bear the pain during urination and defection, disclosed the incident to his parent. Thereafter, the parents lodged a police complaint before Churachandpur Police Station on 31.12.2015 and the police had registered the case in F.I.R. No.102 (12) 2015 CCP-PS under Section 377/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”) against the three Juveniles in conflict of law. Subsequently, all the three Juveniles in conflict of law were arrested and they were subjected to medical examination and the victims were also examined at RIMS Hospital, Imphal. The medical report confirmed that the three Juveniles in conflict of law have committed sodomy upon the five minor victims. The three Juveniles in conflict of law were produced before the Special Judge POCSO/Sessions Judge, Churachandpur. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board, Churachandpur, as the accused were juveniles at the time of commission of the crime.
4. Pending case, the parents of the victims have submitted applications for awarding interim compensation. However, no order has been passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Churachandpur till date. According to the petitioners, the Chairperson of Child Welfare Committee also forwarded application for paying interim compensation by a letter dated 19.08.2017 to the Special Judge POCSO/Sessions Judge, Churachandpur.
5. According to the petitioners, charge sheet has already been filed before the Juvenile Justice Board by the Investigating Officer in the month of March, 2016. Since the proceeding of the trial is too slow on account of frequent adjournments either at the instance of the State Prosecutor or the counsel for the defence, the petitioners have filed the present petition invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the Juvenile Justice Board, Churachandpur to complete the trial within three months and also award interim compensation to the victims.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial of the case has been delayed before the Juvenile Justice Board without any reason. He would submit that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe community hailing from a remote village in Churachandpur District. The learned counsel further submitted that minors are victims of rare and heinous crime of sodomy and they are under undue social stigma, agony and trauma and could not recover completely from the said unnatural incident till date. In such circumstances, the victims need immed
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India others
Suresh and another v. State of Haryana
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.