Uttarakhand High Court (HC) dropped the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) trial against the accused saying the victim doesn’t intend to continue the prosecution as she had moved on in life.

Reporting on the case, LiveLaw notes:

The Uttarakhand High Court recently dropped a criminal trial under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 after noting that the victim had moved on in life and did not intend to prosecute the accused.

The single bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma noted that although offences under the POCSO Act and other IPC offences complained of in the criminal matter are not compoundable under Section 320 of CrPC, however, it could not be ignorant of the fact that both the applicant and the victim (upon attaining majority) had solemnized independent marriages and were living happily discharging their respective matrimonial obligations.

The Court noted that permitting the aforesaid sessions trial to continue, will ultimately result in spoiling two units of family. “Since both of them have married, and at this stage, when they have entered into the marriage, they are major, in that eventuality, their status on the date of commission of the offences on 15.11.2020, has had to be overlooked, in order to maintain harmony amongst the family, with which, each of the parties to the present C-482 application, had been married,” said the Court.

The Court further added: “While exercising the inherent powers under Sections 482 CrPC, this Court is of the view that continuance of the Special Session Trial No. 45 of 2020, “State v. Anees,” would ultimately result in spoiling of the life of two families, and particularly when the victim-respondent No. 2, has made a statement before this Court, that she does not intend to prosecute the present applicant any further.“

The aforementioned case is Anees alias Anees Raza Vs the state of Uttarakhand making it a case where the state is the prosecutor and not the victim, therefore victim’s wish is irrelevant. The judge giving an excuse of the rapist and victim leading ‘happy lives’ also doesn’t hold water.

Letting criminals go scot-free sends a wrong message to society and only encourages criminals. The possibility of the victim being intimidated or even paid off for withdrawing cases would become the norm if courts treat serious crimes like rape so casually.

Earlier in April this year, in a shocking decision, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence awarded to one Mohd. Firoz for the rape and murder of a 4-year-old. He will now just serve 20 years for the crime, not even a full life sentence till the end of his natural life. After making the victim and her family wait for 9 long years, the court failed to deliver justice.

The Kiran Negi case highlights the importance of judicial reforms. Supreme Court would rather fix the height of Dahi-handi and impose Rs. 1 cost on Urban Naxals for contempt, than look into cases like Kiran Negi. Even after the judicial delay in Nirbhaya, no rules have been framed to discourage the abuse of judicial remedies for the delay of the execution of criminals.

How do we expect justice from the judiciary when the apex court believes that every sinner has a future when it should be focused on delivering justice to the victims?

(Featured Image Source: The Hindu)