Menu

Supreme Court Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 71 of 2022STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND ANOTHER VS Dr MAROTI

Case Comment, Publications

CASE COMMENT: –

COURT: – SUPREME COURT OF INDIACASE NO: – Supreme Court Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 71 of 2022STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND ANOTHER

Vs.

Dr. MAROTI (2023)

Appellant: – The State of Maharashtra and Another

Respondent: – Dr. Maroti

CITATION: – (2023) 4 SCC 298

Date Of Judgement: – 02/11/2022

Justice Bench: – AJAY RASTOGI & C.T. RAVIKUMAR

INTRODUCTION: –

The POCSO Act, 2012, is an important legal framework implemented by the Ministry of Women and Child Development in India. Its main purpose is to effectively tackle the horrific crimes of sexual abuse, harassment, and pornography that involve children. The Act strives to create a safer environment for children and guarantee their safeguarding against sexual offenses.

The POCSO Act plays a vital role in India’s endeavors to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. It acknowledges the vulnerability of children and aims to secure a safe and respectful childhood for every child. Through the implementation of stricter legal provisions and enhanced penalties for offenders, the Act acts as a strong deterrent against such crimes and reaffirms the nation’s dedication to safeguarding its children..1

FACTS: –

The case described above involves a medical practitioner (the respondent) who was appointed to treat two minor girls studying in a school hostel under the integrated Tribal Development Project. The girls were not keeping well, and they were admitted to a rural hospital. During the investigation, it was revealed that the girls had disclosed incidents The respondent failed to report instances of sexual assault mentioned by some individuals in their statements under section 154 and 161 of the CrPc (Criminal Procedure Code) to the police or the special Juvenile Police Unit.1

  1. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/898-state-of-maharashtra-v-dr-maroti-kashinath-pimpalkar-2-nov-2022-442136.pdf

Subsequently, a letter was received by the Assistant Project Officer indicating that the girls had been transferred to a General Hospital, where a medical certificate raised suspicions of sexual abuse. Upon receiving this information, the Project Officer authorized the Assistant Project Officer to file a complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR (First Information Report). The FIR included charges under various sections, such as section 376-AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, as well as relevant sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil, and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act.

During the investigation, the Hostel Superintendent and four others were arrested and charged in relation to the crime. Subsequently, the respondent, who was a medical practitioner, was also accused as Accused 6 for failing to report the offense under the POCSO Act. A charge-sheet was filed against all the accused. The respondent then applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Sessions Judge but granted by the High Court. In response, the respondent filed an application under section 482 of the CrPc, seeking the quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet specifically against him. Section 482 of the CrPc empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings if it believes that such proceedings are being misused to harass or cause injustice to an individual. The outcome of the respondent’s application under section 482 is not mentioned in the provided information. It would be the responsibility of the High Court to assess the merits of the application and determine whether the FIR and charge-sheet against the respondent should be quashed, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case.

            The High Court, after considering the statements of the victims, concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the respondent had knowledge of the sexual assault committed on the victims. The victims’ condition deteriorated, leading to their transfer to General Hospital, Chandrapur. The court found no material on record indicating that the respondent was informed about the sexual assault. In fact, the statement of the victims’ teacher suggested that the assault was only detected at General Hospital, Chandrapur. Therefore, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to implicate the respondent in the crime. Continuing the legal proceedings against the respondent would be deemed an abuse of the court’s process. As a result, the High Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet specifically against the respondent”.2

Allowing the appeal, the supreme court—

    2.  (2023) 4 SCC 298

ISSUE RAISED:-

     1. Can an individual be deemed to have committed an offense if they possess knowledge of a sexual assault against a minor but neglect to report it? 3

CONTENTION:-

  1. When a First Information Report (FIR) and the collected evidence from an investigation indicate the occurrence of a recognizable criminal offense, and the final report (charge sheet) submitted in accordance with Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) establishes the necessary elements for constituting an offense under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, coupled with a preliminary case against the accused, the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should refrain from delving into the assessment of the veracity, adequacy, or admissibility of the evidence. These concerns should be left to the discretion of the Trial Court during the course of the trial proceedings.
  2.  In the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the court observed that the severity of an offense cannot be solely determined by the length of punishment. Instead, it should be evaluated based on various factors, taking into account the context in which the offense was recognized by the legislature, particularly in an international context. It is important to note that India ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children on 11.12.1992. This convention obligates state parties to take appropriate measures, both nationally and internationally, to prevent the inducement or coercion of children into engaging in unlawful sexual activities, as well as the exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices. Articles 3(2) and 34 of the Convention specifically impose a duty on the state to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse

3. https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-versus-dr-maroti-s-o-kashinath-pimpalkar

4. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/633-vijay-madanlal-choudhary-v-union-of-india-27-july-2022-428134.pdf

  •  Two  previous court decisions and their approach to quashing FIRs under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
  • As per the judgment in the matter of M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita, the High Court, while adjudicating the possibility of dismissing an FIR, is restricted from reexamining or inspecting the evidence collected during the investigation, which encompasses the statements documented under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The court lacks the jurisdiction to analyze these materials with the intent of arriving at a decision concerning the dismissal of the FIR.
  • In the case of Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab & Ors., the Supreme Court, in a two-Judge Bench, addressed the factors that the High Court can consider when quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The court held that statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., which are considered wholly inadmissible as evidence, cannot be taken into account by the court when deciding a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that such statements should not serve as the basis for quashing criminal proceedings.
    • In summary, these two decisions clarify that the High Court cannot reevaluate the materials collected during the investigation or consider statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. while deciding on the quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Statements under Section 161 are considered inadmissible in evidence and should not be the basis for quashing criminal proceedings. 5

5.  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/812650/

RATIONABLE:-

  1. Based on the statements of the victims and a teacher, the High Court reached the conclusion that the respondent had not been made aware of the sexual assault on the victims and that there was no evidence connecting him to the crime. The court specifically noted that the sexual assault came to light only when the victims were taken to the General Hospital in Chandrapur.
  2.   The charge-sheet provides initial evidence against the respondent regarding the failure to report the act under the POCSO Act, while the FIR raises suspicions of sexual assault. In the appellant’s case, some of the seventeen victims have admitted to the sexual assault in statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, while others have provided statements under Section 164 of the same code. Given these circumstances, it is clear that the High Court should have conducted an inquiry, particularly by examining the recorded statements of the victims and their instructor, in order to form an opinion regarding the existence of evidence.
  3. The counsel representing the respondent sought to justify the impugned judgment by referring to the precedent established in A.S. Krishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala. They contended that, according to this ruling, the respondent could not be held accountable for failing to report the sexual assault under the POCSO Act, despite having knowledge of its occurrence. However, upon careful examination of the aforementioned ruling, the Supreme Court is compelled to declare that it is entirely unsuitable in light of the specific facts and circumstances of the present case.
  4. The court’s decision was made solely to verify the High Court’s finding that the respondent’s remarks do not indicate any awareness of the crime being committed. However, it should be reiterated that these statements, which mention the respondent being informed by the victims about their sexual assault, cannot be considered as evidence.5

5.  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63029436/

DEFECTS OF LAW:-

In the event that the High Court holds a strong conviction, substantiated by articulated rationale, that the continuation of the prosecution would merely amount to an abuse of the judicial process, it retains the prerogative to act in accordance with such a belief.

CONCLUSION / INFERENCE:-

The apparent verdict in question, leading to the dismissal of the alleged FIR and charge-sheet, thereby obstructing the prosecution without affording the opportunity to assess corroborative evidence, cannot be regarded as a just course of action. Instead, it appears to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the contentious ruling of the High Court is overturned, and the appeal is granted accordingly. Any pending applications are denied. The case is remanded for further proceedings in adherence to the law, ensuring an equitable and impartial scrutiny of the evidence before the appropriate tribunal. This determination is guided by the objective of upholding principles of justice and safeguarding the rights of all parties enmeshed in the case.

NAME:- SUDIPTO MONDAL

2ND YEAR LLB (H) STUDENT UNDER 3YRS. LLB COURSE

GEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW, KONNAGAR, HOOGHLY AFFILIATED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN