Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently set aside an order of the Uttarakhand High Court, which had directed a fresh investigation in a POCSO case while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The apex court termed the high court’s intervention as "entirely unwarranted," emphasizing that it should not have interfered when the POCSO Court had already taken cognizance of the case.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale observed that given the gravity of the alleged offence, the high court should not have remanded the matter for reinvestigation. "When the POCSO Court had taken cognizance, considering the seriousness of the offence, the High Court should not have interfered with the same and remanded the matter for fresh investigation," the bench stated.

The case arose from an appeal filed by the prosecutrix challenging the Uttarakhand High Court's May 15, 2024, order, which arose from an earlier decision of the Special Judge – POCSO Act/District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, on October 11, 2023. The case was registered under Sections 376(3), 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Initially, the Investigating Officer (IO) had sought to file a closure report in the case against respondent no. 2, but the POCSO Court refused to accept it. The trial court, in its October 11, 2023, order, noted that the victim was 15 years old at the time of the incident, and her statement under Section 164 CrPC provided a clear description of the offence. The court found no reason to disbelieve her testimony.

The trial court also remarked that the investigating officer had relied primarily on statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC to file the closure report, which was unjustified in such a serious matter. It further pointed out that while the IO had cited a land dispute between the parties, this conflict arose after the incident, and multiple complaints had been submitted to the District Magistrate regarding the accused. Finding no major contradictions between the FIR and the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, the trial court rejected the closure report and held that a prima facie case was made out against the accused, Vijaypal, under the relevant sections.

Subsequently, the high court, while allowing a revision application filed by respondent no. 2, directed the IO to investigate certain aspects afresh and submit a new report, citing delays in the FIR and other evidence. It remanded the matter to the lower court for fresh consideration.

The Supreme Court, however, found this intervention inappropriate. "From the bare reading of the impugned order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC, which normally should have been exercised in a rare case," the bench noted. Setting aside the high court’s order, the apex court restored the trial court’s decision of October 11, 2023, and directed that proceedings before the POCSO Court should continue in accordance with the law.

Case Title: X Vs The State of Uttarakhand & Anr