Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, May 25
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that presumption of guilt engrafted in Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act will operate against an accused unless rebutted.
The ruling came as Justice Suvir Sehgal of the High Court denied anticipatory bail to an accused in a sexual harassment case involving a minor.
REASON: LOW CONVICTION RATE
In normal course, an accused has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But under the POCSO Act, the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence. The concept of reverse burden was incorporated in the system apparently keeping in view the low conviction rate in cases of sexual offences against kids
Section 29 of the POCSO Act makes it clear that the special Court "shall presume" the accused to be guilty, when he is prosecuted for committing an offence of sexual assault against a minor.
In normal course, an accused has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But in a case under the POCSO Act, the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence. The concept of reverse burden was incorporated in the system apparently keeping in view the low conviction rate in cases of sexual offences against children.
Justice Sehgal asserted: "The victim, a young girl of 13, has levelled specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner, which have been duly supported by her in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. The presumption of guilt under Section 29 of POCSO Act, unless it is rebutted, operates against the petitioner."
Justice Sehgal added that the investigation in the matter was yet to be completed and concession of anticipatory bail could not be extended to the petitioner as there was a possibility that he might try to influence the complainant.
The matter was placed before Justice Sehgal after the accused in the case filed a petition against the State of Haryana and other respondents seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered at the Model Town police station in Panipat district on January 5 for outraging modesty and other offences under Sections 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, along with the provisions of the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
The Bench was told that the FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint from the Panipat Child Welfare Committee, alleging that that the complainant/prosecutrix was taking care of an infant and doing odd jobs while working in a house for past one-and-a-half years.
Whenever the owner went to her parental house at Jalandhar, she took her child and the complainant along. It was alleged in the FIR that the owner's brother molested the complainant when she went to Jalandhar in October 2020 on one such occasion.
from The Tribune https://ift.tt/3wzqXhH
No comments:
Post a Comment