Karnataka High Court directs judicial academy training for trial judge who took ‘inhuman approach’ in POCSO case

The Karnataka High Court recently censured a trial court judge for showing an “inhuman” and “insensible” approach in dealing with evidence in a case involving the sexual assault of a 8-year-old girl. [State of Karnataka v. Venkatesh @Venkappa].Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar minced no words as he set aside the acquittal of the accused Venkatesh and sentenced him to a rigorous imprisonment of five years for aggravated sexual assault of the minor.The Court found the additional sessions judge who had acquitted the accused to be “highly insensible” and “lacking professionalism” in the way he dealt with the prosecution evidence. “The POCSO Court judge who has delivered the judgment requires some training in the Karnataka Judicial Academy on handling these types of cases. Therefore, the Court is hereby recommending making the POCSO Court judge who delivered the judgment to undergo training in the Karnataka Judicial Academy,” ordered the Court..The minor victim was sexually assaulted outside her house in February 2018. The accused faced trial under provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code. In December 2020, the trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that no independent witnesses had been examined and that the doctor’s evidence revealed that there was no injury on the victim.The decision was challenged by the State before the High Court..Justice Sanjeevkumar opined that the POCSO Court had appreciated the evidence “too technically” and not in a correct manner. The Bench questioned how the trial court expected eyewitnesses in the POCSO case and called its approach “completely erroneous, perverse and inhuman”..On merits, the High Court found the evidence of the parents of the minor girl relevant and believable. It also found the minor victim’s evidence to be believable and trustworthy.After analyzing the evidence of other relatives as well, the Court said it was proved that the accused had committed the alleged offences. “In these types of cases, the witnesses available are parents and relatives and minor victim. The POCSO Court wanted independent witnesses and eye-witnesses which is highly impossible,” Justice Sanjeevkumar opined..The Court also said the trial court committed serious error in rejecting the doctor’s evidence on the ground of absence of visible injuries.“When it is alleged that the accused had squeezed the chest part of the victim there could not be occurrence of injuries. The accused might have touched chest part of the victim and back portion of the victim or might have lightly squeezed, then there could not be chances of occurring injuries,” it added.In this context, the Court observed that the POCSO Court judge was not sensitive in appreciating the evidence on court. Expecting injury in these types of offences of outraging modesty is completely unwarranted and "shocks the conscience" of the Court, Justice Sanjeevkumar remarked.The Court added that the POCSO court had assigned flimsy reasons while acquitting the accused and had been “highly insensible” in appreciating the evidence.“Finding fault with prosecution witness at every line and adopted too technicality is nothing but travesty of justice that what is done by the POCSO Court judge in the present case,” it concluded..Finding the accused guilty of aggravated sexual assault and sexual harrasment, the Court sentenced him to five years imprisonment.The Court also ordered the District Legal Services Authority to pay compensation of ₹5 lakh to the minor child under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme. .Advocate Praveen Devaraddiyavar represented the State.Advocate Anwar Basha B represented the accused.Amicus Curiae Sonu Suhel represented the complainant..[Read Judgment]