In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition seeking discharge of an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, emphasizing that the determination of “culpable mental state” must be addressed during the trial and not at the pre-trial stage.
Case Background:
The case in question, Crl.R.P. No. 818 of 2022, involves an 80-year-old advocate, P.C. Varghese Muthalai, who is the sole accused in S.C. No. 300/2021 pending before the Special Court under the POCSO Act in Pathanamthitta. The prosecution alleges that on November 10, 2019, the accused sexually assaulted a 12-year-old boy who visited his office, making inappropriate comments while touching the boy’s private parts.
The accused, represented by Advocate Thomas George, had sought discharge from the case, arguing that the incident, even if admitted, did not involve sexual intent—a key element required to constitute an offense under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
Legal Issues Involved:
The petition raised crucial legal questions about the interpretation of “culpable mental state” under the POCSO Act, specifically whether this mental state could be presumed at the pre-trial stage or whether it required a full trial for proper adjudication.
Justice A. Badharudeen, who presided over the case, highlighted that the prosecution must establish a prima facie case for the offence, which includes proving the accused’s culpable mental state, a determination that must be made during the trial. The defence’s argument, which questioned the existence of such intent, was deemed premature at the discharge stage.
Court’s Decision:
The court, referencing Section 30 of the POCSO Act, noted that there is a statutory presumption of culpable mental state, which the accused must rebut. Justice Badharudeen stated, “Culpable mental state on the part of the accused shall be presumed by the Court, but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence.”
The court further clarified that assessing the probative value of the materials on record is inappropriate at the discharge stage. Instead, the trial must proceed to allow the prosecution to present its case and for the accused to challenge it during the course of the trial.
Also Read
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Special Court’s decision to proceed with framing charges and conducting a trial. The interim order previously granted was vacated, and the Special Judge was directed to expedite the trial, ensuring its completion within four months.
