The Bombay High Court recently cautioned that in criminal cases, courts must not place an over‑emphasis on the rights of the accused at the cost of forgetting the rights of the victim who triggers the criminal justice system [Ramesh Dada Kalel v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.]

A Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Manjusha Deshpande made the observation while upholding the life sentence imposed on a man for repeatedly raping his 13‑year‑old neighbour.

“In our system, sometimes there is a danger of over‑emphasis on the rights of the accused, while completely forgetting or ignoring the rights of the victim,” the Court remarked.

The Court noted that accused persons often raise a plethora of contentions on fair trial rights, leading to the rights of the victim being sidelined.

"It has to be kept in mind that the victim triggers the criminal justice system and quite often, the focus on the rights of the accused is over-emphasized to such an extent that the victim is bewildered and feels completely lost, as regards his or her rights and concerns,” the Court added.

The Bench underlined that the rights of both the accused and the victim must be balanced because a criminal case or appeal is ultimately about finding the truth and deciding whether the accused’s guilt is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

The case before the Court concerned the conviction of one Ramesh Dada Kalel in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

Kalel was convicted by an Extra Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge at Panvel, Raigad, in August 2023 for raping his minor neighbour.

The girl had returned home from school to take epilepsy medication when Kalel is said to have dragged her into his house, confined her in a bedbox and sexually assaulted her through the night.

The trial court sentenced Kalel to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life after finding him guilty of rape under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and imposed a fine of ₹50,000.

Kalel (appellant) challenged this verdict before the High Court, where he assailed both the evidence cited against him and the procedure followed during the investigation and trial against him. He contended that the survivor’s testimony was inconsistent and not of “sterling quality” and that the medical evidence did not fully support her version. Among other arguments, he claimed that the victim had tried to conceal a love affair between her and the appellant and that it was not a case of forced sexual assault.

He further argued that there was a fundamental defect in the charge because it referred to Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, a clause deleted by a 2018 amendment, even though he was ultimately sentenced under Section 376(3).

Kalel argued that this defect vitiated the entire trial and that, at the very least, the matter should at least be remanded for retrial or fresh hearing on sentence.

The High Court rejected these arguments. It held that the survivor’s evidence was believable, corroborated by her mother, the school headmistress and the medical record, and that her age (13) rendered the question of any consent for the acts perpetrated by the appellant irrelevant.

On the procedural point, the judges accepted that there was an error in framing the charge, but found that it caused no prejudice to the accused that could render the entire trial invalid.

'So long as no prejudice is caused to the accused and there is no failure of justice, even if there is an error in framing of charge, the appellant cannot claim re-trial and remand of proceedings to the Trial Court. Instead, the appellate Court can correct the error ...The material clearly indicates that the appellant was never misled about the case against him and hence, he had full opportunity to defend himself, which he indeed utilized. There was no prejudice caused to the appellant and failure of justice was certainly not occasioned," the Court said.

In view of this, the Bench corrected the legal position by modifying the conviction to record it under Section 376(3) IPC, but sustained all other findings and maintained the life sentence imposed by the trial court.

Advocates Tapan Thatte, Vivek Arote and Akshay Dingale briefed by advocate Dayanand Mane appeared for Kalel.

Additional public prosecutor Dhanalakshmi S Krishnaiyer appeared for the State.

Advocate PS Potdar (appointed through legal aid) appeared for the complainant.

[Read Judgment]