HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
JEFFIN KURIAKOSE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 768/2021
PoCSO Act - Abetment - Sections 16, 29
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in a case pending before the Fast Track Special Court, Changanassery. He filed a petition seeking discharge, which was dismissed by the Special Judge. The petitioner has challenged the order in this petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The Special Judge held that the petitioner is liable to be tried for the offence of abetment punishable under Section 17 of the PoCSO Act, even though the offence was not alleged in the final report. The court found that the petitioner's acts of helping the victim to avail a flat and providing a mobile phone, when he knew the victim was a child, would amount to aiding the commission of the sexual offences under the PoCSO Act.
Issues: Whether the petitioner can be charged for the offence of abetment under Section 17 of the PoCSO Act, even though it was not alleged in the final report.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 16 of the PoCSO Act defines abetment, which requires 'intentional aiding' of the commission of an offence. Section 29 of the PoCSO Act creates a legal presumption of guilt in cases of sexual offences against minors, which also applies to abetment charges. The petitioner's acts of facilitating the victim to avail a flat, when the 1st accused was also present, attract the presumption of abetment under Section 29.
Final Decision: The impugned order dismissing the petitioner's discharge plea is upheld.
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in S.C.No.154 of 2021 pending on the files of the Fast Track Special Court, Changanassery. He filed Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2021 seeking discharge. The learned Special Judge dismissed that petition as per the order dated 14.12.2021. Challenging that order, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The offences alleged in the final report are punishable under Sections 363 , 368 and 376(2)(n) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and Sections 4 r/w 3 and 6 r/w 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (PoCSO Act). The Special Judge held that the petitioner is not answerable even constructively for the charges of kidnapping and rape. However, it was held that the petitioner is liable to be tried for the offence of abetment punishable under Section 17 of the PoCSO Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that such an offence was not alleged in the final report and the materials produced by the prosecution would not make out such an offence as against the petitioner. The statement of the victim itself reveals that the petitioner, who is her friend, helped her on her request to find a flat. The further overtact is that he dropped the de facto complainant and the 1st accused near the flat and that he purchased a mobile phone and gave to her. In the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner by any stretch of imagination those acts would not attract an offence of abatement to commit kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault. Accordingly, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner discharged.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that when the petitioner, knowing fully that the victim was a child, facilitated to avail a flat and stay there along with the 1st accused, that would amount to aiding him for the commission of the sexual offences. It is contended that the statement of the victim coupled with assertions by charge witness Nos.7 and 8 establishes the complicity of the petitioner in facilitating commission of such an offence and therefore he is answerable to a charge of abetment.
5. From the statement of the victim given to the investigating officer under Section 161 of the Code, Annexure A4, it is seen that the petitioner is her friend and on her request only the petitioner had helped her to avail the flat on rent where the alleged offences of sexual assault occurred. It is also stated that he took her along with the 1st accused near the flat. On her request only a mobile phone was made available to her by the petitioner. From the statements of charge witness Nos.7 and 8, it is evident that it was the victim who took initiative to avail the flat on rent. It is, however, seen from the victim's statements that the petitioner was also along with them for availing the flat. When that is the evidence proposed by the prosecution to prove the complicity of the petitioner, his contention that the said acts would not amount to any offence has to be considered in the light of the provisions of Sections 16 and 29 of the PoCSO Act.
6. Section 16 of the PoCSO Act which defines abetment has three clauses. If an act of a person falls within the purview of any of those clauses it would amount to abetment. The third clause, at the best, applies to the present case. The third clause is hence reproduced here:
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.