Partly allowed

Angad @ Rinku S/O Shri Amlesh Kharwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Nov 2024CRLAD/242/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court partly allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The instance of PW-16 and PW-20, with a direction to appoint an Amicus Curiae and allow re-summoning for cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and sentence set aside; case remanded to Trial Court for fresh proceedings with Amicus Curiae appointment and re-summoning of witnesses PW-16 and PW-20 for cross-examination.

Angad @ Rinku S/O Shri Amlesh Kharwal Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:48186-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 242/2023

¶4

Angad @ Rinku S/o Shri Amlesh Kharwal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Plot No. 32, Vishunpur, P.S. Mehnagar, District Aajamgarh (Utter Pradesh) At Present R/o Rajat City Ke Saamne Tapari, Kunhari, P.S. Kunhari, Kota (Raj.). At Present Accused Is In Central Jail, Kota).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore (Amicus Curiae)

¶10

For State : Mr. Sudesh Saini, Addl. G.A., Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. G.A. & Mr. Kshitiz Tiwari

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

25/11/2024

¶14

Appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 20.12.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences Act, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 376(AB) of I.P.C. & 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to life imprisonment for remainder of his life and a fine of Rs.20,000/-; on non-payment of fine, to further undergo four month’s simple imprisonment.

¶15

It is contended by Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore, Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant that counsel for the appellant refused to appear on behalf of the accused-appellant before the Trial

¶16

[2024:RJ-JP:48186-DB]

¶17

[CRLAD-242/2023]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

Court, still the Trial Court did not provide Amicus Curiae to the appellant to defend his case. It is also contended that no crossexamination of two main witnesses of the case i.e. I.O. & Doctor (PW-16 & PW-20 respectively), has been done.

¶20

Learned Addl. Govt. Adv. has opposed the grounds taken by the Amicus Curiae. It is contended that there was refusal on the part of the counsel for the appellant to cross-examine and the Court was left with no other alternative to close the crossexamination.

¶21

We have considered the contentions.

¶22

Present is a case of an accused who is represented by Amicus Curiae, as rightly pointed out by the Amicus Curiae that if a counsel refuses to appear for the accused, it is the bounden duty of the Court to appoint Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.

¶23

In the present case, on 11.11.2022, when the counsel refused to appear for the accused, the Trial Court closed the evidence and, thereafter, wrote to the District Legal Services Authority, Kota for appointment of an Amicus Curiae, but the point remains that on the date when the counsel for the accused refused to appear on behalf of the accused, no advocate was representing him and the evidence was closed without giving opportunity of cross-examination to the accused, who was in custody.

¶24

In view of the above, we deem it proper to partly allow the present Criminal Appeal and set-aside the judgment and sentence dated 20.12.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences Act and remand the case back to the concerned Court for deciding the matter afresh, with a

¶25

(3 of 3) [CRLAD-242/2023]

¶26

[2024:RJ-JP:48186-DB]

¶27

direction to appoint an Amicus Curiae for the accused and re-summon PW-16 & PW-20 and permit Amicus Curiae to crossexamine PW-16 & PW-20. The appellant would also be free to adduce additional evidence, if so advised.

¶28

The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

¶29

The concerned Jail Authorities are directed to produce the accused before the concerned Court on 16.12.2024.

¶30

Office is directed to send the record back to the concerned Court forthwith along with certified copy of this order.

¶31

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶32

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶33

AMIT/89

Angad @ Rinku S/O Shri Amlesh Kharwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angad @ Rinku S/O Shri Amlesh Kharwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Devi W/O Gopal Bagoriya Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaypal S/O Shri Mularam Vs State of Rajasthan

Digvijay Singh Rajawat S/O Surendra Singh Rajawat Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gaurav Singh Lohamaror S/O Dev Anand Lohamaror Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramgopal @ Gabbu Son of Ramjilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mrs. Foola Devi W/O Late Shri Ramanand Yadv Vs Collector