Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

Recently a Maulvi of Malappuram Mosque walked scot-free of charges under the POCSO Act. Apparently, the child survivor turned hostile in court. The Fast Track Special Court, Kannur observed that there might be an out-of-court settlement.

According to a case registered by Senior Civil Police Officer of Mayyil Police Station, the alleged rape happened in the bedroom of the accused attached to a Mosque. The Mosque is located at Kuttiattur Panchayath situated at Pavannur centre. The Moulvi named Riyas laid himself over an 11-year-old child in his Mosque-attached bedroom. Accordingly, the Police booked him under Section 7, read with Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Initially, the investigation report was laid before Additional District and Sessions Court-I, Thalassery. The same report was later handed to a special POCSO Act court.

The court upheld all charges framed against Riyas. He secured the bail. After his bail period ended, Riyas appeared in court and pleaded not guilty. His bail was extended.

Before the court, Moualvi did not bring any witnesses from his side. On the contrary, the prosecution brought three witnesses- the survivor, his friend and Suresh Babu P.K, the Police witness who also investigated the case.

The accused Moualvi was questioned under Section 313 of CrPC. The said Section gives power to the Court to question the accused in the way it considers necessary. The accused is not under oath and can explain everything regarding incriminating evidence. Even if he gives false answers, the accused is not liable to punishment.

After that, both parties were given opportunities under Section 232 of CrPC. The Section provides for acquittal if the judge does not find any evidence. Till the end of the process under the Section, there was incriminating evidence. Moulavi could not produce evidence in his support.

Things changed after the witnesses recorded their arguments in court. Even the survivor turned hostile.

The court did not doubt the competence of the survivor child as a witness. According to Sri. Jomon John, Special Judge, the child being 13 years of age and capable of giving rational answers were enough facts to prove him competent. The child explicitly denied that he was subjected to any kind of sexual assault.

When asked whether he had signed the First Information Statement which could result in the incrimination of Moulavi, the child replied in the affirmative. However, he expressed his disapproval of the contents of the statement. The second witness, who was also a friend of the survivor, also weakened the case by declaring his ignorance. Even a fervent cross-examination by a Special Public Prosecutor could not bring forth any substantive result.

The Investigating Officer who appeared as the third witness presented extensive documents containing investigation and reports. The court observed, “He deposed that he had conducted the investigation and laid final report against the accused. However, as the material witnesses did not support the prosecution, the evidence of PW3 assumes no significance,”

After examining every piece of evidence and statement, the court reached the conclusion that the prosecution hadn’t succeeded in proving Moulavi’s guilt. At the same time, Special Judge Jomon John also laid out a serious observation.

Watching how the survivor and his friend turned so hostile, that even a vehement cross-examination by the Special Public Prosecutor could not deter them from their position led the judge to doubt the authenticity of Mouavi’s innocence. The possibility of an out-of-court settlement can’t be ignored, the judge said.

“From the material evidence of PW1, nothing is gathered to believe that the accused committed any of the offences charged. It is inferred from the evidence of PW1 that the entire matter had been settled out of court,” observed the court.

Case Title: Station House Officer vs. Rafeeque P

Statute: Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012