The Delhi High Court criticized a lower court’s decision to discharge two individuals accused of involvement in a child pornography case, labelling it a “miscarriage of justice.” The high court highlighted procedural errors and oversight in the lower court’s ruling. It has called for a reassessment of the evidence against the accused.
![[Paper Leak Case] Delhi HC Granted Three-month Extension to Conclude the Trial](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-40.png?resize=500%2C300&ssl=1)
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has taken a public interest litigation (PIL) plea and converted it into a suo motu revision petition due to concerns over a miscarriage of justice. The PIL challenged a sessions court order from September 2023, which discharged two individuals accused of offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
The accused, along with unidentified others, were alleged to be involved in circulating, storing, and viewing child sexual abuse material through social media groups.
The petitioner, Tulir Charitable Trust, also requested the formulation of guidelines for courts dealing with cases involving online or offline Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) of unidentified children. The sessions court, in discharging the accused, stated that POCSO could not be invoked against them due to the absence of criteria to determine the age of the children depicted in the pornographic videos/photos.
During the investigation, which followed the registration of a First Information Report, a search conducted at the houses of the two individuals in November 2021. A mobile phone and a hard disk were recovered, and upon examination, 34 videos from the phone and 14 videos from the hard disk found to contain sexually explicit content involving children. Additionally, 25 videos recovered from the phones of the other accused, also depicting children in a sexually explicit manner.
The Delhi High Court noted that the sessions court had failed to consider the definition of child pornography, which is crucial for invoking the POCSO Act. Furthermore, the sessions court disregarded the statements of two doctors who had confirmed that some individuals shown in the videos/photos, indeed below 18 years of age and classified as children.
The bench noted,
“The court believes that the learned ASJ-SC’s dismissal of the medical witness’s statement is unjustified, especially without any medical or scientific evidence to contradict the doctors’ statements,”
The bench further noted that the sessions court disregarded the principle that at the stage of framing charges, the crucial consideration is,
“whether there is adequate material on record to presume the accused individuals have committed the crime.”
Citing precedents from both the Supreme Court (SC) and High Courts (HC), the bench stated ,
“The High Court’s ‘revisional jurisdiction’ can be activated ‘suo moto’ in instances of ‘manifest illegality’ or when courts have incorrectly assessed or failed to assess evidence.”
In the exercise of its “suo motu revisional jurisdiction” as provided by Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Delhi High Court directed that the public interest litigation (PIL) be registered as a “suo moto revision petition.”
The case will be listed before a single judge bench of the High Court according to the assigned roster on May 21.
Furthermore, the court has appointed advocate Aashaa Tiwari as amicus curiae to provide assistance to the single judge bench. The petitioner’s counsel has also been allowed to assist the amicus curiae.
The High Court issued a notice to the two accused individuals, requiring them to explain why the sessions court order should not be set aside.
The court clarified that the remarks in its order “prima facie in nature,” and the parties are free to present all their arguments and submissions before the single judge bench.
Read Also: POCSO ACT: Bombay HC Concerns Increasing Cases Involving Minors In Romantic Relationships
During the hearing, the court panel also inquired about whether the CBI’s representative filed an appeal or revision against the ruling of the lower court. The agency responded that it had not done so, and furthermore, it had no intention of challenging the order. This decision based on the fact that the trial already progressing under the provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Indian Penal Code, specifically pertaining to criminal conspiracy.
The court panel also observed that the petitioner, a charitable trust dedicated to combating child sexual abuse, neither a witness nor a complainant in the ongoing case before the sessions court. Therefore, the trust considered a third party unrelated to the criminal proceedings.
The High Court emphasized,
“It is well-established that public interest litigation (PIL) in criminal matters is generally not entertained. There was no need to formulate new guidelines in this case, as existing legal provisions were deemed sufficient for addressing the matter.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
