CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has set aside the order of Special POCSO Court, Sambalpur, referring a 20-year-old accused to the Juvenile Justice Board simply because he was a minor at the inception of a continuing offence of alleged rape.
The accused shall be tried strictly in accordance with law, as a major, without recourse to the protective provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, Justice SK Panigrahi ordered.
Passing adverse remarks on the conduct of the trial court, Justice Panigrahi observed, “What is most disconcerting in the present case is the manner in which the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court (POCSO), despite the clear and unequivocal contents of the FIR, charge sheet and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, has proceeded to refer the accused to the Juvenile Justice Board for further proceedings.”
“This situation leaves room for only two conclusions, either the learned judge has fundamentally misunderstood the law, failing to recognize the clear principle that an individual who has attained majority cannot be tried as a minor, or there are more troubling factors at play, suggesting possible interference with the proper course of justice,” he remarked.
According to case records, the primary allegations against the accused was that he forcibly engaged in physical relations with the victim minor girl, took obscene photos of her, and threatened to make the photos viral via WhatsApp. The offence was continuing from 2017 to 2023.
A complaint was lodged by the victim at Burla police station after the accused again forcibly established a physical relationship with her and threatening to kill her if she revealed the incident to anyone, on June 16, 2023. A case was registered against the accused under Section 376(2)(n), 376(3), 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act on June 18, 2023.
The Special POCSO Court, Sambalpur, concluded that the accused was a child in conflict with law (CICL) at the time of the alleged offence and lacked the jurisdiction to try the case and transferred it to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial.
“The notion that proceedings should commence under juvenile jurisdiction simply because the accused was a minor at the inception of a continuing offence is a proposition so untenable, so discordant with established legal doctrine, that it raises profound concerns, not merely about the fairness and reliability of the adjudication, but about the very competence of the judge who rendered it,” Justice Panigrahi further contended.