POCSO case acquittal by Ravi Drall Advocate, Rohini Court, Delhi.

Best Criminal Lawyer in Rohini Court, Delhi.

A Delhi Sessions court acquitted a man charged for POCSO, sexually assaulting a minor who stated that the relationship was mutual in nature.
As per the case of prosecution the victim was missing from her home when the complaint was lodged by her mother in Burari police station for kidnapping of her daughter. The Victim came back to her house just after two days and during her statement recorded U.S: 164 CrPC wherein she stated that she went with her consent to her maternal aunt house because she was upset with her mother. The victim later married with accused and during the trial they had one child also.
Advocate Ravi Drall appeared for the accused and argued that the relationship was mutual in nature, Investigating agency didnt record the statement of relatives of the victim at whose house she stayed. There were inconsistencies between the statements of the witnesses and contradictions which put dent into the case of prosecution. It was further argued that the age of the victim was also conflicting.

The sessions court while acquitting the accused held that the relationship between the victim and the accused was mutual in nature and one child has born out of said relationship, victim didnt testify against the accused in her statement recorded U.S: 164 CrPC further the manner of arrest also seems suspicious. Keeping in view the relationship although minor the accused was acquitted by Hon’ble Sessions Court Rohini.

State of Karnataka v. Shivanna (2014)

The POCSO Act, 2012 does not require that every statement made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 be recorded. The statement of a victim against whom offences have been committed under Sections 354354-A354-B354-C354-D376(1)376(2)376-A376-B376-C376-D376-E, or 509 of the IPC, 1860 should be recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, according to the Section 164(5-A) (a) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. The statement should be recorded as soon as the commission is brought to the attention of the police, according to Section 164(5-A)(a) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court of India while deciding the present case of State of Karnataka v. Shivanna (2014) observed that the investigating officer should present the victim before any Metropolitan, ideally Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of the rape to record the statement under Section 164(5-A)(a) C.r.P.C., preferably to a Lady Magistrate.

Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and Others (2018)

In the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and Others (2018), the Supreme Court of India laid down guidelines to be followed by Special Courts while trying a case under the POCSO Act, 2012 so that the trial is completed within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence, as provided under Section 35 of the aforementioned Act. The guidelines are provided hereunder:

  1. The High Courts are responsible for ensuring that cases filed under the POCSO Act are heard and decided by Special Courts and that the presiding officials of such courts are trained in child protection and psychological reaction.
  2. If not previously done, the Special Courts should be constituted and given the role of dealing with matters brought under the POCSO Act.
  3. The Special Courts should be given instructions to expedite cases by not granting superfluous adjournments and following the procedure outlined in the POCSO Act, allowing the trial to be completed in a time-bound manner or within a certain time period set forth in the Act.
  4. The Chief Justices of the High Courts have been asked to form a three-judge committee to control and supervise the progress of the POCSO Act cases. In the event that three judges are not available, the Chief Justices of the respective courts will form a Judge Committee.
  5. A Special Task Force will be formed by the Director-General of Police or a State authority of comparable rank to guarantee that the investigation is properly handled and witnesses are presented on the dates set before the trial courts.
  6. The High Courts must take appropriate efforts to create a child-friendly environment in Special Courts, keeping in mind the requirements of the POCSO Act, to ensure that the spirit of the Act is upheld.

Advocate Ravi Drall has represented clients in cases related to Anticipatory, regular Bails, Acquittal, Revisions, Appeals, Writs, PIL’s in cases of MCOCA, Cheating, Fraud, Murder, Attempt to murder, Extortion, Dacoity, Sexual Offences, Suicide, Narcotic and Drugs, Revenue and Customs Criminal Cases, Economic Offences, Arms and Weapons, Matrimonial, Domestic Violence, Constitutional Law, Negligence, and have availed favourable decisions from the courts. It is always advisable to seek for the best professional legal advise in case of criminal law as it involves intricate complexities and a small fact lead to an acquittal. best criminal lawyer in rohini court.

Best lawyer in delhi best criminal lawyer bail  lawyer best lawyer in tis hazari court best lawyer in rohini court best lawyer in patiala house court best matrimonial lawyer. best advocate in delhi best criminal advocate best matrimonial advocate best ndps

About the Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may also like these

× How can I help you?