JOSEPH Vs. STTE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.548 of 2018 pending before the Additional Sessions Court (for the Trial of Cases Relating to Sexual Violence Against Women and Children), Ernakulam. The case originated from Crime No.784 of 2016 registered at the Nedumbassery Police Station for offences punishable under Section 376(f) of IPC and Sections 7 , 8 , 9(l) , (m) and (n) of POCSO Act. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused, a close relative of the victim, had committed rape and aggravated sexual assault on the victim over a period of five years continuously from 1.6.2012 to 30.5.2016. After investigation, the police filed four separate final reports and the Special Court took cognizance and numbered the cases as S.C.Nos.548, 549, 550 and 551 of 2018. As per the final reports, the date of occurrence in S.C.No.548 of 2018 is between 1.6.2012 and 30.5.2013, in S.C.No.549 of 2018 between 31.5.2013 and 30.5.2014, in S.C.No.550 of 2018 between 31.5.2014 and 30.5.2015 and in S.C.No.551 of 2018, between 31.5.2015 and 30.5.2016. Trial has commenced in S.C.No.548 of 2018, and charge has not been framed in the other cases, which are now pending before the newly established Fast Track Court at Aluva. During the course of trial in S.C.No.548 of 2018, defence counsel filed a petition under Section 218(1) of Cr.P.C, seeking to club and try all four cases as a single case. By Annexure A8 order, the trial court dismissed the petition. Hence, this Crl.M.C.

(2.) Heard Sri.Ranjith Marar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ramesh Chand, learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the findings in the impugned order contending that the trial court committed an illegality in placing reliance on Section 219(1) . It is submitted that the allegation being of aggravated sexual assault under Section 9 (l) of the POCSO Act, which gets attracted on the victim being subjected to sexual assault more than once, or repeatedly, Section 220(4) is the applicable provision. According to the learned Counsel, the other three cases were transferred to the Fast Track Court on its formation and there is no impediment in trying those cases along with SC No.548 of 2018. It is contended that the decision in State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal [AIR 2002 SC 3687], relied on by the trial court was rendered under entirely different circumstances. Finally it is submitted that the intention of the POCSO Act is to conduct the trial in such a manner that least difficulty is caused to the child victim and hence, forcing the victim to face the trauma of giving evidence in the four cases separately should be avoided by trying the cases together. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kandimalla Subbaiah and another [AIR 1961 SC 1241], State of Punjab and another v. Rajesh Syal [(2002) 8 SCC 158], Manoharan v. Director General of Police [2001 (3) KLT 509] and Lichen Metals Pvt. Ltd and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2019 Cri.LJ 3397], in support of his contentions.