ABHISHEK AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been iled being aggrieved with the order dtd. 11/10/2023 passed in Special ST No.85/2022, whereby, the First Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), District Janjgir-Champa (CG) has refused to supply a copy of the entire charge sheet to the petitioner on the ground that the identity of the child and her relatives must not be disclosed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been charge sheeted under Ss. 354, 376, 312 of the IPC and Ss. 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, 2012 (in short "the POCSO Act"). When the petitioner moved an application (Application No.3002/2023) before the Head Copyist to get the certiied copy of the entire charge sheet, learned trial Court by the impugned order dtd. 11/10/2023 refused to supply the same. He submits that the impugned order is not sustainable as the said rejection would defeat the object of the fair trial and more so, right of the accused to a fair trial is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is also saved under Sec. 207 of the Cr.PC. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition and issue a suitable direction to the concerned trial Court in this regard.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that Sec. 33(7) of the the POCSO Act provides that the Special Court shall ensure that the identity of the child is not disclosed at any time during the course of investigation or trial: Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Special Court may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the interest of the child. He would submit that under Sec. 25(2) of the POCSO Act prescribes that the Magistrate shall provide to the child and his parents or his representative, a copy of the document speciied under Sec. 207 of the Code, upon the inal report being iled by the police under Sec. 173 of that Code. However, learned counsel for the State would submit that the learned counsel for the petitioner may be permitted to inspect the original record/charge sheet for balancing the rights of the victim and the accused.