HC directs judicial academy training for trial judge who took ‘inhuman approach’ in POCSO case

Hameed Ashraf

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court recently censured a trial court judge for showing an “inhuman” and “insensible” approach in dealing with evidence in a case involving the sexual assault of a 8-year-old girl.

Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar minced no words as he set aside the acquittal of the accused Venkatesh and sentenced him to a rigorous imprisonment of five years for aggravated sexual assault of the minor.

The Court found the additional sessions judge who had acquitted the accused to be “highly insensible” and “lacking professionalism” in the way he dealt with the prosecution evidence.

“The POCSO Court judge who has delivered the judgment requires some training in the Karnataka Judicial Academy on handling these types of cases. Therefore, the Court is hereby recommending making the POCSO Court judge who delivered the judgment to undergo training in the Karnataka Judicial Academy,” ordered the Court.

The minor victim was sexually assaulted outside her house in February 2018. The accused faced trial under provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code.

In December 2020, the trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that no independent witnesses had been examined and that the doctor’s evidence revealed that there was no injury on the victim.

The Bench questioned how the trial court expected eyewitnesses in the POCSO case and called its approach “completely erroneous, perverse and inhuman.”

On merits, the High Court found the evidence of the parents of the minor girl relevant and believable. It also found the minor victim’s evidence to be believable and trustworthy.

“In these types of cases, the witnesses available are parents and relatives and minor victims. The POCSO Court wanted independent witnesses and eye-witnesses which is highly impossible,” Justice Sanjeevkumar opined.

The Court also said the trial court committed serious error in rejecting the doctor’s evidence on the ground of absence of visible injuries.

Expecting injury in these types of offences of outraging modesty is completely unwarranted and "shocks the conscience" of the Court, Justice Sanjeevkumar remarked.

The Court added that the POCSO court had assigned flimsy reasons while acquitting the accused and had been “highly insensible” in appreciating the evidence.