PC Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dtd. 13/12/2024 [hereafter impugned order"], passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (POCSO)- 03, South West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, [hereafter Trial Court"] in SC No. 682/2022, titled as State of NCT of Delhi v. Vinay Malhotra", by way of which the learned Trial Court was pleased to close the evidence of the petitioner-victim.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner-victim had filed a complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 290/2022, dtd. 28/6/2022 at Police Station Dwarka, Delhi, for offence punishable under Ss. 328/376/384/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter IPC"], with later addition of Ss. 379/384/506 of IPC and Sec. 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter POCSO Act"]. The learned Trial Court had passed an order on charge on 1/12/2023, directing framing of charge. The victim"s examination-in-chief was recorded on 3/2/2024 and she was partly cross-examined on 24/2/2024. On 20/3/2024, charges under Ss. 5(1) and 5(p) read with Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act were added under Sec. 216 of Cr.P.C. against the accused, based on specific allegations of penetrative sexual assault made by the victim during her examination-in-chief. Despite multiple adjournments, no reply had been filed to the application under Ss. 437(5)/439(2) of Cr.P.C. Cross-examination of the victim resumed on 4/10/2024, but the same was adjourned again due to the victim's absence and counsel's non-compliance with his undertaking. On 13/12/2024, during the recording of cross-examination, the counsel for the accused had put a question to the victim regarding whether her maid, Siya Pardesia, used to stay at her house. This question had been objected to by the counsel for the victim on the ground that it was repetitive. The victim replied that she had already answered the question and that it was being repeated. At this stage, the learned Trial Court had closed the cross-examination of the victim with the observation that "the victim has repeated verbatim response from her counsel."

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the closure of the victim's evidence by the learned Trial Court vide order dtd. 13/12/2024 is wholly unjustified, without any factual or legal basis, and it causes serious prejudice to the petitioner who is the child victim in this case. It was argued that the prolonged pendency of the petitioner's application under Ss. 437(5)/439(2) of Cr.P.C., and repeated unwarranted adjournments have led to inordinate delay in the trial, in violation of the timelines prescribed under the POCSO Act. The learned counsel pointed out that the child victim was compelled to attend court on multiple dates despite the mandate under Sec. 33 of the POCSO Act that a child should not be called repeatedly, and that the trial proceedings lacked the required childfriendly atmosphere due to adverse remarks and aggressive questioning, contrary to Ss. 33(4) and (6) of the POCSO Act. It was further contended that counsel for the accused conducted crossexamination without a valid vakalatnama, rendering the proceedings procedurally flawed. In the absence of any efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking setting aside of the impugned order and to ensure fair trial in accordance with law.