SUMESHWAR KHEMI CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, by this revision, challenges the order dated 27 -4 -1993 passed by VI Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jabalpur whereby the Court has refused permission to a junior lawyer to appear with the senior lawyer for the accused appellant in Sessions Trial No. 61 of 1991 held in camera for the alleged offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the provisions of Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not permit the learned trial Judge to exclude appearance of lawyers or legal practitioners engaged by the accused whatsoever be their number.

(3.) THE intention behind introduction of sub -section (2) to Section 327, Criminal Procedure Code by amendment, clearly appears to be that the prosecutrix or victim of sexual offences is not embarrassed or feel intimidated while deposing in the Court. It is also to safeguard the reputation of the victim concerned and her conduct being made a subject matter of general public talk or debate. Any construction, therefore, to be placed on sub -section (2) of Section 327, Criminal Procedure Code should be such as to effectuate and fulfil the subject of holding trial in camera in the cases of sexual offenes against women.