Karnataka High Court orders trial court to finish 2014 school POCSO case in eight weeks
The Karnataka High Court has directed a Special Court to complete a trial regarding the alleged 2014 sexual assault of a six-year-old girl at a school in Bengaluru within eight weeks. Expressing serious concern over the decade-long delay, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the prolonged trial had kept the victim "captive" within the criminal justice system due to repeated adjournments.
The case dates back to 2014, when a six-year-old girl was allegedly sexually assaulted at a school in Bengaluru. A chargesheet was subsequently filed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Despite the statutory mandate for speedy disposal, the trial has remained pending for over ten years.
Criticising the routine grant of adjournments, Justice Nagaprasanna stated that the case does not involve an ordinary offence but the alleged rape of a child. The court observed that every adjournment granted without compelling justification has prolonged the trauma of a child who entered the criminal justice system as a victim. Justice Nagaprasanna added that delays in cases of this nature assume the character of a "continuing injustice."
The court pointed out that Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act requires trials to be completed within one year from the date cognisance is taken. It also referenced Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates day-to-day trials.
The High Court's directions came during a writ petition filed by the victim's father. The father had challenged the trial court's refusal to summon the Magistrate who recorded the child's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. He argued that the statement lacked the signatures of both the victim and the Magistrate, meaning the Magistrate's testimony was required to establish its authenticity.
Rejecting the father's contention, the High Court held that the absence of a child victim's signature does not invalidate a statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. The court explained that to prove such a statement, it must be shown to and marked through its maker, who must acknowledge making it before the Magistrate. Summoning a Magistrate is only necessary in exceptional circumstances, such as when a witness completely denies making the statement.
While upholding the Special Court's refusal to summon the Magistrate, the High Court ordered the trial court to conclude proceedings within eight weeks. The court instructed both parties to cooperate and stated that the Special Court is free to reject unwarranted adjournment requests and use all legal measures to ensure an expeditious conclusion.
