POCSO prevails over Atrocities Act; bail petition allowed by HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: While a person accused under both the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, the former prevails over the latter, the High Court of Karnataka has said.

The HC allowed a criminal petition filed by a 24-year-old from Hassan under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) as mandated under the POCSO Act.

It dismissed the contention of the prosecution that he should have filed an appeal as mandated under the POA Act.

“Whenever there is a conflict between the provisions of two special enactments, it is trite that the provisions of the later of the two enactments will prevail. This is because the legislature was aware of the earlier statute at the time of enactment of the later statute. Unless the legislature specifically provides in the later statute that the provisions of the earlier statute would prevail, then it has to be understood that the provisions of the later statute would prevail over the earlier statute,” Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said in his recent judgement.

A minor girl had committed suicide, allegedly because the accused had threatened her to marry him. The father of the victim had filed the complaint and a FIR was registered under Sections of the IPC, POCSO Act and POA Act.

On June 28, 2023, the Trial Court had rejected the bail petition of the accused following which he approached the HC with a criminal petition. He was in custody since his arrest on April 30, 2023.

Though both the Acts have provisions regarding overriding effects on other Acts, the POCSO Act came after the POA Act.

“In the background of the aforesaid principle of law, having regard to Section 42A of the POCSO Act, it is very clear that the provisions of the POCSO Act will prevail over the provisions of the Atrocities Act. A similar view has been taken by various High Courts and I am in complete agreement with the same,” the HC said.

Therefore, the criminal petition was held to be maintainable. Regarding the bail, the HC said that the accused had not committed any act which would have instigated the victim.

“Petitioner has not committed any such act in the house of the complainant which would have abetted or instigated the minor girl to commit suicide,” the HC said. Allowing the petition and granting bail to the accused, the HC also noted the behavior of the complainant.

“Complainant and her brother-in-law who were present in the spot, had not gone to rescue t h e minor girl when allegedly the petitioner was abusing and pestering her. This conduct of the complainant and her brother-in-law raises a serious doubt with regard to the allegations made by them in the complaint,” the HC said. (CrlP 7421/2023)