Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Periyaswamy M., filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging an order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.233/2020. The impugned order had declined the petitioner's plea to adduce defence witnesses from the stage of defence evidence. The petitioner was the accused in a case arising from Crime No.48/2020 registered on 11.02.2020 for offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, the police filed a charge sheet including additional offences under Section 376 IPC read with Sections 5(n), 6, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner sought to set aside the trial court's order and to be allowed to adduce defence evidence by reopening the stage of defence evidence. The High Court heard arguments from Sri Sathish C., counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. The court noted that the trial court had rejected the plea without providing the petitioner an opportunity to present his defence. The High Court held that the right to adduce defence evidence is an integral part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the petitioner to adduce defence evidence, subject to the condition that the trial court shall expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within a stipulated period.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Right to Fair Trial - The High Court held that the trial court's rejection of the accused's plea to adduce defence evidence was erroneous as it deprived the accused of a fair opportunity to defend himself. The court emphasized that the right to adduce defence evidence is a fundamental facet of the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 1-5) B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 8, 12, 5(n), 6 - Trial Procedure - Defence Evidence - The accused, charged under POCSO Act and IPC, sought to reopen defence evidence after prosecution evidence was closed. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court's order and permitting the accused to adduce defence evidence on conditions. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner/accused's plea to adduce defence evidence after the stage of defence evidence was closed, and whether such rejection violates the right to fair trial.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal petition, set aside the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.233/2020, and permitted the petitioner/accused to adduce defence evidence. The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within a stipulated period.
Law Points
- Right to fair trial
- Opportunity to adduce defence evidence
- Section 482 CrPC
- POCSO Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
