Case Title:
P.C. VARGHESE MUTHALALI V. STATE OF KERALA
Date of Order:
14th August 2024
Bench:
Justice A. Baharudeen
Parties:
Petitioner: P.C. VARGHESE MUTHALALI
Respondent: STATE OF KERALA
Subject:
The petitioner is contesting the decision made on November 1, 2022, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4642 of 2022 in Supreme Court Case No. 300 of 2021. In this verdict, the court rejected the petitioner's request for parole under Section 227 of the CRPC.
Important Provisions
Protection Of Children Against Sexual Offences Act
Section 7: Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.
Section 8: Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 30: —(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the 13 existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
Explanation- In this section, “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
Code Of Criminal Procedure
Section 397: —(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the 13 existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
Explanation— In this section, “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
Section 401: (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307, and, when the Judges composing the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one conviction.
(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of Justice so to do,
Section 227: If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.
Facts
A petition for revision has been submitted in accordance with Section 401 and Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case with reference number SC No. 300/2021, the petitioner is the sole person charged.
The case is now on trial at the Pathanamthitta Special Court for charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual charges Act (POCSO Act). The petitioner is contesting the decision made on November 1, 2022, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4642 of 2022 in Supreme Court Case No. 300 of 2021. In this verdict, the court rejected the petitioner's request for parole under Section 227 of the CRPC.
Arguments By the Petitioner
The counsel had contended to the court that there were crimes committed by the defendant accused as per sections 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act and for that reason, the defendant should get the requisite punishment for the said crimes.
It was further stated that on 10th November, 2019, the accused had committed sexual assault upon the 12 year old victim. The defendant allegedly did this by letting his pants down, caressing his genitalia, and making a derogatory comment about the size of his penis while witnesses 2 and 3 were present.
The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the Court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who claimed to have been wrongly accused in the incident. The attorney contended that the trial court had neglected to adequately evaluate the essential components required to establish the crimes outlined in Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act when it rejected the petition seeking the petitioner's release.
The lawyer argues that the claims, at first glance, do not provide sufficient evidence to support a case for prosecution. Therefore, the Special Court's decision to reject the discharge petition was incorrect and needs intervention to grant the discharge.
Arguments By the Public Prosecutor
The learned Public Prosecutor said that, based on the allegations, there was sufficient evidence to show breaches under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, which necessitated the filing of charges and the trial.
This was stated when the opponent of the release was expressing their opposition to the release. As a consequence of this, the learned Special Judge had made the proper decision to refuse the petition for discharge, and they did not need any interference in their decision.
Court's Analysis
The Kerala High Court, at the onset highlighted that in another case of Sandeep G v State of Kerala, the HC had set some guidelines wrt to the petitions filed under S.227 of CRPC and the process of framing of charges under S.228 of the CRPC.
In the said case, it was stated that the it was the trial judge's duty to gauge and determine whether there was enough evidence from the prosecution side so as to decide whether the case against the accused can be moved forward.
Moreover, in furtherance of the same, it was said that there was a requirement of the judge going through the records so as to see whether there existed justified reasons to press charges upon the accused. The accused would be released if no sufficient grounds were discovered.
Nevertheless, charges would be necessary to be lodged if there were any legitimate justifications. In order to determine whether the case required a trial, the judge was expected to employ a systematic and perceptive approach to the facts presented by the prosecution.
Furthermore, it was also emphasized that at the stage of dismissal of charges, the court was required to take into account any evidence presented by the accused that diminishes the efficacy of the case. The court was required to accept the prosecution's evidence as accurate and assess whether it substantiated the essential components of the offense at this juncture.
The prosecution's evidence was the sole subject of scrutiny, while the defence’s evidence was disregarded. The primary criterion assessed was the existence of a distinct and apparent instance, without considering the probative value of the evidence. The court was required to make an initial determination regarding the existence of the fundamental elements of the offense without conducting a comprehensive examination of the evidence.
The evaluation of evidence and determination of likelihood were unnecessary, since they were within the jurisdiction of the trial judge during the trial. If there was a significant doubt about the guilt of the accused, charges had to be formally stated in order to allow the prosecution to present its case.
However, if the evidence offered by the prosecution, even if fully accepted, does not prove the guilt of the accused, there would be inadequate grounds for a trial, and the accused should not have been charged.
The court had mentioned and talked about S.7 and S.8 of the POCSO act and further had stated that the accusation in this instance was that the defendant unfastened the victim's trousers, seized his penis, and made a remark about its diminutive size, like that of a kid. The prosecution explicitly claimed that these activities were executed with a deliberate sexual motive.
Nevertheless, the defence said that even if these actions were acknowledged, they could not be deemed to have been carried out with a sexual purpose. The court was faced with two important problems regarding the 'culpable mental state' under the POCSO Act: (i) What criteria should determine its boundaries? and (ii) Was it suitable to address the matter of 'culpable mental condition' while dismissing or invalidating legal proceedings, so prohibiting the prosecution from submitting evidence and removing the burden of proof from the accused under Section 30 of the POCSO Act?
The court had cited S.30 of the POCSO Act which talked about presumption of culpable mental state, which meant that the court was required to presume that the accused had a culpable mental state, but it was the duty of the accused to prove that he lacked the intent to do the act in the question that were deemed to be violations.
If the specific conduct listed in the provisions were proved, the court was obligated to presume the culpable mental state of the accused prior to the trial. After the trial, as the prosecution effectively met its initial duty of presenting the actions of the crimes, along with all pertinent elements, the burden of proof shifted to the accused to prove that he did not possess a culpable mental state to commit the offense with sexual intent.
Therefore, the evaluation of the defendant's mental condition, which might possibly establish their culpability, cannot be carried out during preliminary procedures. Nevertheless, it is feasible for the allegations to be invalidated or dismissed during the pre-trial phase if the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to adequately substantiate the claimed crimes.
After carefully reviewing the prosecution's evidence and analysing the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel and the Public Prosecutor, it was concluded that dismissing this case would be inappropriate.
The evidence offered by the prosecution seemed to validate the allegation, so supporting the formal accusations and the need of a trial. It was decided that the only time the question of whether the defendant had the required sexual intent could be answered was in court, not beforehand.
The trial court's decision to deny the petitioner's motion for discharge was deemed appropriate in light of the evidence that was given. As a result, the Kerala High Court denied the plea and decided that it was not essential to become involved in the contested ruling. Furthermore, the court also reversed the previously issued order.
