BALASAHEB @ SURYAKANT YASHWANTRAO MANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Balasaheb @ Suryakant Yashwantrao Mane
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
A.M. Badar, J. -
(1.) By this revision petition, revision petitioner/original accused no.2 is challenging the charge framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Waduj, on 7th January 2017, for offences punishable under Sections 19 read with Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (POCSO Act), Section 202 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3(2)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988.
(2.) Heard Shri Rahul Kate, the learned advocate appearing for the revision petitioner/original accused no.2. By placing reliance on judgment in the matter of Kamal Prasad Patade v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2016(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 629 : 2016 CRI.L.J. 3759, Shri Rahul Kate, the learned advocate appearing for the revision petitioner/original accused no.2 vehemently argued that initially the prosecution is obliged to prove the commission of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the POCSO Act against original accused No. 1 Shahaji Anandrao Patole and then only the prosecution can file the charge sheet against the present revision petitioner/original accused no.2 for the alleged offences under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act. Unless and until the principal offence is proved against the main accused, the coaccused cannot be chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act. The learned advocate further argued that in the case in hand, as yet, principal offence is not proved to have been committed by the accused no.1 Shahaji Patole and therefore, composite charge sheet could not have been filed against the revision petitioner/original accused no.2 by arraigning him as an accused with principal accused Shahaji Patole. The learned advocate further argued that immediate superior officials incharge of the ashram school are not made as an accused by the police and unnecessarily the revision petitioner/original accused no.2, who is Director of the Trust, is joined as an accused for the offence punishable under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act.
(3.) The learned APP opposed the revision petition by contending that objects of the POCSO Act are required to be kept in mind and there cannot be charge sheet against accused persons in piecemeal - one of the substantive/principal offence and after result thereof, the another for the offence punishable under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act. The learned APP further argued that mandate of Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act is to the effect that the victim child should not be called repeatedly before the court for testifying against accused persons and if contention of the learned advocate for the revision petitioner is accepted, then that will amount to violation of provisions of Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.