The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on January 20, 2025, by a bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, emphasized that High Courts cannot direct how investigations should be conducted by investigating officers (I.O.). The ruling came in the case of X v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 2025), wherein the apex court set aside an order of the Uttarakhand High Court that interfered with the decision of a POCSO Court.
Case Background
The case involved allegations of sexual assault under Sections 376(3) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012. The prosecutrix, a minor at the time, accused the respondent of the crimes, with the FIR being lodged in January 2023, several months after the alleged incident.
The POCSO Court, after reviewing the closure report filed by the I.O., rejected it, citing the credibility of the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, the Uttarakhand High Court overturned this decision in a revision petition filed by the accused, directing the I.O. to investigate specific aspects such as alternate mobile numbers and the accused’s whereabouts at the time of the incident.
The prosecutrix, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, approached the Supreme Court.
Important Legal Issues
1. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC:
Can High Courts direct how investigations should proceed within the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction?
2. Evidentiary Weight of Victim’s Statement:
Should a victim’s consistent and credible statement suffice for rejecting a closure report and proceeding with charges?
3. Significance of Delayed FIR:
How should courts evaluate the delay in filing an FIR, particularly in cases involving sexual offenses?
Important Observations of the Court
On revisional jurisdiction, the bench remarked:
“The High Court has directed how the investigation should have been done by the I.O., which, according to us, was absolutely unwarranted in exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction.”
Addressing the evidentiary weight of the victim’s statement, the Court emphasized:
“When the POCSO Court had taken cognizance of the alleged offense, considering the seriousness and gravity of the offense, the High Court should not have interfered.”
On delayed FIRs, the Court highlighted:
“Delay, in itself, is not a ground for dismissing serious allegations, particularly in cases of sexual violence against minors.”
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding that it had overstepped its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC by prescribing how the investigation should have been conducted. The Court restored the POCSO Court’s decision to reject the closure report and proceed with the case.
