Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Hazrat Deen vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 January, 2022
Bench: Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari
ITEM NO.9 Court 8 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9552/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-10-2021
in CRLR No. 259/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
HAZRAT DEEN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.160939/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. )
Date : 06-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.G.Hasnain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR
Mr. R. Chaudhry, Adv.
Mr. Ali Safeer F., Adv.
Mr. Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Adv.
Mr. S.M. Afzal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
In this special leave petition the petitioner has challenged an order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow dismissing the criminal revision application by the petitioner being CRLR No. 259/2021.
The aforesaid criminal revisional application was filed challenging Signature Not Verified an order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Digitally signed by Rachna Date: 2022.01.24 Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bahraich, hereinafter referred to 15:53:05 IST Reason:
as the Trial Court, dismissing the application of the petitioner for discharge.2
The facts giving rise to these proceedings are obnoxious. The prosecutrix is the daughter of the petitioner, only 19 years of age. It is alleged that she had been sexually abused.
In the petition, it is stated that the charge sheet was filed implicating the petitioner of offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 354 and 376 thereof as also Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner emphatically argued that the POCSO Act came into force only on 14.11.2012. The incident alleged pertain to the period prior to the enforcement of the POCSO Act.
The petitioner has not been charged only under the POCSO Act. Even assuming that the petitioner could not have been charged under the POCSO Act, the petitioner has been charged under various provisions of the IPC which were admittedly in force on the date of the alleged offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued that the FIR does not disclose offence under Section 376 of the IPC. The FIR is the initial document. In her statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after the prosecutrix attained majority, she categorically made statements which tantamount to offence under Section 376 of the IPC.3
Discrepancies between the FIR and any subsequent statement under Section 164 of the CrPC may be a defence. However, the discrepancies cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation of trial.
There is no infirmity in the order of the High Court rejecting the criminal revisonal application.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made absolutely clear that the observations made above are not to be construed as any finding of this Court that there has been no offence under the POCSO Act or that the prosecutrix has not been abused after commencement of the POCSO Act.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(MANISH ISSRANI) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)