Bombay HC sets aside man's conviction, death penalty for rape of 2-year-old girl
It directed the fast-track trial court to re-hear arguments based on additional evidence and decide the case afresh, in accordance with law and 'without being influenced' by the high court's order.
'Since this is a case of capital punishment, the court has to ensure that all opportunities are afforded to the accused to defend himself. The accused must get one opportunity to argue all aspects with respect to additional evidence before the trial court itself, so that he does not lose one forum,' the High Court said.
A bench of Justices Sarang V Kotwal and Shyam C Chandak passed the order while considering the state government's plea seeking confirmation of the death sentence awarded to Sanjay Baban Katkar, along with Katkar's appeal challenging his conviction.
According to police, in February 2021, the girl was kidnapped from outside her home while she was playing in the front yard. The investigation relied on the account of a rickshaw driver who had dropped a man and a child nearby, and a local woman who directed police towards the route taken by the man.
The girl was found dead inside a cement pipe next to a bridge, and medical examination revealed she was raped. Police arrested a brick-kiln worker, who was convicted and sentenced to death under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, he was not sentenced for the offence of murder.
In his interim application appealing the conviction, among other claims, the worker argued that the forensic experts who prepared key DNA reports were not examined during the trial, denying him the chance to challenge their findings. He also sought lab records and worksheets to scrutinise the evidence. The high court, in July last year, had directed the trial court to comply with these requests, after which the record and proceedings were sent to the high court.
Advocate Rebecca Gonsalves, representing the accused worker, argued that the matter needed to be remanded to the special court in light of a Supreme Court judgment in another case with 'strikingly similar' facts and issues.
The high court referred to the SC judgment and found it 'necessary to remand back the matter.' It added that the trial court can consider additional evidence and ascertain its cumulative effect with other evidence. However, the trial court should not conduct a full re-trial or re-record all evidence.
'If this course is not adopted, then the accused would lose his valuable right to having the entire evidence appreciated by the first forum, i.e., the trial court. We are ensuring that this does not happen and he gets full opportunity to raise all grounds based on additional evidence before the trial court,' the bench noted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
30 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Consensual sex between adolocents aged 16 to 18 years must not be treated as abuse: amicus curiae to SC
Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising has argued that consensual sexual acts by teenagers, aged between 16 and 18, in voluntary relationships cannot be classified as 'abuse' or prosecuted as a crime. The written submissions filed by Ms. Jaising in the apex court is part of a petition filed by advocate Nipun Saxena dating back to 2012. The amicus's brief has challenged the age of pegged at 18 years by the enactment of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) to the extent that it works to criminalise 'consensual sexual activity between children between the age of 16-18'. 'The only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18 is not a form of 'abuse',' Ms. Jaising's submissions said. The senior advocate, who was India's first woman Additional Solicitor General of India, said the exemption for consensual sexual acts between individuals in this age group must be read into the POCSO Act and also Section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code and its corresponding provision, Section 63, of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Definition of 'child' She submitted that the word 'child' in Section 2(d) of POCSO should not include individuals aged between 16 and 18 who engage in consensual sexual activity. 'Without reading down the statutory age of consent set at 18, it is prayed that the Supreme Court read into the impugned provisions a 'close-in-age exception', applicable when both parties to the sexual act are adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 and the sexual act is consensual. Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' Ms. Jaising reasoned in her submissions prepared with the assistance of advocates Paras Nath Singh, S. Sherwani, Rohin Bhat and R. Sinha. 'No reason to increase age for consent to 18 years' The case in question contains a challenge against the increase of age of consent from 16 yeats to 18 years through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. 'The age of consent was static at 16 for 80 years. No rational reason has been indicated for the increase, nor is there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase. The BNS has also kept a legislative scheme similar to the one in the Criminal Law Amendment Act,' the amicus curiae submitted. She argued that the increase in the age of consent violated the right to autonomy of children between the ages of 16 and 18 who have the ability to give mature consent to sexual activity, having regard to the fact that they have attained puberty giving rise to sexual awareness. 'Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and the development of sexual relationships of choice. Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law,' the submissions contended.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Udaipur Files': SC declines to extend stay on release, says those against it can approach Delhi HC
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to extend the stay on release of the film Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder and told those objecting to it to approach the Delhi High Court for any further relief. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy, who appeared for those opposing its release, that they can approach the high court if they want to challenge the order by the expert committee set up by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to review the certificate granted to the movie by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The committee, set up following an order of the Delhi High Court, had recommended allowing the release subject to certain changes, including a new disclaimer. While Sibal was appearing for Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani, Guruswamy was appearing for Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. 'We have not touched the merits…We will pass an order asking the high court to take it up on Monday…Whatever arguments you have to make, go to high court,' the bench said. As the counsel for those objecting to the release sought a stay in the meanwhile, Justice Kant said, 'meanwhile nothing.' Appearing for the filmmakers, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia opposed the request for extending the stay ordered by the high court. 'What is happening is very peculiar. This is my SLP [special leave petition] challenging the stay. Can they ask for stay in my SLP when they have a legal remedy before the HC?' Bhatia asked. The court pointed out that it had not granted any stay. Sibal said, 'I am not disputing that. In any case he can't screen the movie after tomorrow. You have to get 1,800 cinema halls.' Another counsel urged the bench, 'Your Lordships need only say HC will hear it on Monday. Meanwhile, the movie will not be screened, that is all.' The bench, however, did not agree. Bhatia referred to the objections raised in the past to the release of the film, Kerala Story, and the Supreme Court subsequently allowing its release. 'Every time the SC has allowed release. Let them go to HC. The HC will give them a detailed hearing. If there is a case made out for a stay, the HC will grant them. Why should this court, where I am the aggrieved party, pass an interim order stopping the release of the movie?' he said. Bhatia added, 'All preparations at my end are being done. I have lost 12 days already. I have abided by every instruction…Now today they couldn't make out a case. The revisional authority has passed an order. It would not be appropriate for Your Lordships to grant relief to them at this juncture.' Pointing out that around 1,200 screens had been blocked to screen the film, Bhatia said, 'And what are we encouraging Your Lordship? Is that question not relevant? Any person…comes forward, says I am aggrieved, my feelings are hurt. Can there be a …movie which will not hurt the sentiments of anyone? And then there are orders passed by the HC. A special screening was done for them. 55 plus 6 plus disclaimer edited by them…Now any further stay would be unfair.' The CBFC had ordered 55 cuts and the committee constituted by the Centre had recommended six further changes in addition to a new disclaimer. A counsel backing demands for its release said that no one was vilified even when films like Kashmir Files were released. 'The argument is this film will vilify the community and jeopardise the social fabric of the country. Earlier also similar arguments were made…Did any incident happen after the Kashmir Files? Was any Muslim targeted? Was the community vilified? Were even Kashmiri Muslims targeted?' he submitted. 'Madani should understand that the social fabric of the country was not harmed even after Pahalgam. It was not harmed after 26/11, or after the actual incident of Udaipur, or after Kashmir Files, or after Kerala Story. If it was harmed, it should be part of their petition. It is not. Their vilification theory and hate story is a figment of imagination. They are making a mountain out of a molehill….They want us to believe Udaipur Files is more profound than Pahalgam, Pulwama…,' he added. Bhatia questioned Madani's credentials saying he has three FIRs registered against him for provocative speech. 'They want to act as super censor. Can this be allowed in a country like ours?' he asked. Justice Kant said, 'Today, only short question here is once you withdraw your petition, should there be a condition from this court (to not screen) for 2 days, 3 days…?' Sibal said that all cases cited by the film makers are different from this 'for the simple reason that this movie has been seen while others were not seen. Therefore I am challenging the content which could not be done in those cases.' The high court had allowed a special screening and asked those objecting to watch it before it decided their plea for stay of release. Sibal argued that his case is also covered by the Supreme Court judgment in the Amish Devgan case. But Justice Bagchi said, 'In that respect, we will apply the Wednesbury principle. Whenever an expert body takes a decision, courts are generally deferential. It is not that judicial review is completely obviated. If the finding is perverse or completely contrary to the established principles, fundamental principles, courts will interfere. But nonetheless, we won't put the test of proportionality vis a vis the hands of the expert body.' Sibal said 'They have a CBFC certificate. The presumption is in their favour. But I have a right to challenge it.' 'You have (already) challenged it,' said Justice Bagchi. Sibal said, 'If they make a statement that it is not being released till Monday, Your Lordships may fix it for Monday (before the HC).' Justice Kant, however, said, 'No, how can we compel them to make a statement!' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
RCB pacer Yash Dayal accused of raping minor; FIR registered in Jaipur
JAIPUR: IPL side Royal Challengers Bengaluru's under-fire pacer Yash Dayal has been accused of raping a minor in an FIR registered against him by Jaipur Police. The 27-year-old cricketer from Uttar Pradesh is already facing charges of sexual exploitation from a woman in Ghaziabad who has alleged that Dayal abused her after promising to marry her during a five-year relationship. SHO of Jaipur's Sanganer Sadar police station Anil Jaiman said that the latest FIR was registered on Wednesday. "FIR was registered against Yash Dayal for rape under relevant sections of POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) act and the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)," he said here on Friday. According to Jaiman, the victim has alleged that the player raped her first in 2023 when she was 17 and a similar assault took place in April this year at a hotel in Sitapura area. "She alleged that the cricketer had promised help and support in her career. He contacted her in April this year when he was in Jaipur for IPL and called her to the hotel where he allegedly raped her again," the SHO said, adding that the matter was under investigation. Dayal, a medium pacer, is a reasonably well-known bowler in the Indian domestic circuit. He made his debut for Uttar Pradesh in 2018 and has since played 27 first-class games, claiming 84 wickets. He has appeared in 71 T20 matches that have yielded 66 scalps. Dayal started his IPL career with the Gujarat Titans in 2022 before moving to RCB, which bought him for Rs five crore in the 2024 players' auction. He was retained by the Bengaluru team for this year's season too and was a key member of the trophy-winning outfit under Rajat Patidar.
