Rajasthan High Court Overturns POCSO Conviction: Amicus Curiae Not Appointed

 

In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court overturned the conviction of a man sentenced under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, highlighting a procedural irregularity that occurred during the trial. The key issue in this case was the failure of the trial court to appoint an amicus curiae (friend of the court) for the accused, despite the fact that the defendant was unrepresented by legal counsel during the proceedings. The High Court found that this omission resulted in a miscarriage of justice, leading to the quashing of the conviction.

Facts of the Case

The appellant in this case was convicted under the POCSO Act for offenses related to sexual assault on a minor. The trial was conducted without legal representation for the accused, and crucially, the trial court did not appoint an amicus curiae to ensure that the accused's rights were safeguarded throughout the proceedings. The appellant’s counsel argued that the absence of legal representation and an amicus curiae constituted a serious violation of the principles of fair trial.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The Rajasthan High Court, upon reviewing the case, observed that the trial court had failed in its duty to ensure a fair trial. It noted that the appointment of an amicus curiae is a constitutional safeguard when an accused person is unable to afford legal representation. The Court cited precedents where the lack of proper legal assistance and the absence of an amicus curiae had resulted in the violation of the right to a fair trial. The bench pointed out that such procedural flaws could not be overlooked, especially in sensitive cases involving allegations under the POCSO Act, where the stakes are incredibly high.

Significance of the Judgment

The High Court's decision is important because it reinforces the fundamental right of an accused to receive a fair trial, particularly when they are unable to afford counsel. It highlights the Court's commitment to ensuring that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done. The ruling stresses that the failure to appoint an amicus curiae undermines the fairness of proceedings, and courts must take proactive steps to protect the rights of the accused, especially in cases involving serious criminal charges.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community