A special POCSO court
Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court has quashed conviction of a Pocso accused and ordered a fresh trial in the case in which a 14-year-old victim had committed suicide by self-immolation. In July, a special Pocso court at Nadiad in Kheda district awarded Devendra Chavda 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under IPC for suicide abetment and under Pocso Act . She finally succumbed to her burn injuries in 2021. The victim set herself ablaze on Jan 25, 2021, and died on Feb 4, 2021, during treatment.
After hearing his application, Justice V K Vyas quashed the trial court’s order citing “glaring procedural infirmities” and “manifest illegalities” during the trial. Asking the trial court to conduct the trial again in six months, HC ordered, “…while conducting the trial, the trial court shall remain deeply conscious of the judicial sensitivity and meticulous care mandated by the Supreme Court in handling the proceedings under the Pocso Act, especially in tragic instances like the present case, where a 14-year-old victim girl was driven to self-immolation due to sexual harassment by the accused. ” It further said, “The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that a trial court must not sit as a passive spectator or a mere recorder of evidence; rather, it owes a bounden duty to ensure all material evidence is brought to light to arrive at a just determination. His conviction was mainly based on two dying declarations that were recorded after the victim immolated herself. Chavda challenged his conviction and sought suspension of sentence. HC noted that the conviction rested solely on two dying declarations. The court found that the prosecution had not examined key medical witnesses, including the treating doctor who recorded the initial history and the medical officers who endorsed the patient’s consciousness and orientation on the yadis preceding the dying declarations. Regrettably, a bare perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the trial court failed to appreciate these foundational tenets, culminating in a grave error of law and a patent failure to bring crucial evidence on record necessary for a just determination. ”