'Counsel Didn't Even Read Basic Provisions': MP High Court Slams State For Mechanical Appeal In POCSO Case, Directs Departmental Enquiry
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday (November 28), dismissed an appeal filed by the State challenging the conviction granted to the accused, observing that the State had mechanically prepared the appeal without checking the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.The appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Judge (POCSO Act), which convicted the accused...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday (November 28), dismissed an appeal filed by the State challenging the conviction granted to the accused, observing that the State had mechanically prepared the appeal without checking the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Judge (POCSO Act), which convicted the accused under Sections 5(L) and 6 of the Act and sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of 20,000.
The counsel for the State argued that since the accused was also convicted under Section 376(2)(N) (rape) IPC, then there was no reason for the trial Court not to sentence the accused under the IPC offence.
However, a division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ramkumar Choubey noted that Section 42 POCSO Act provides for 'alternate punishment', stipulating that when an act constitutes an offence under the POCSO Act and the IPC, the offender shall be punished under the law prescribing the greater punishment.
The court observed that the punishment under Section 6 of the POCOS Act–that is not less than 20 years which may extend to life imprisonment–was higher in degree than the punishment under Section 376(2)(N) of IPC which is stated to be not be less than ten years which may extend to life imprisonment.
Accordingly, the high court concurred with the trial court's judgment.
The bench further criticized the State for filing an appeal 'mechanically', noting that "it is apparent that, learned counsel who prepared the memo of appeal, did not bother to even go through the basic provisions of the POCSO Act and mechanically prepared the appeal, therefore, appeal having been filed without application of mind deserves to fail and is dismissed".
Therefore, the court directed;
"For bothering the system without there being any justification, cost of Rs.20,000/- is imposed on the State to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee for the utilization of such cost for the benefit of poor litigant. The Cost shall not be debited to the public exchequer but to be recovered from the delinquent official. State shall first deposit the cost and will be free to recover it from the delinquent officer/officers. Let an enquiry be also conducted against the Law Officer of the Law & Legislative Affairs Department who had given opinion and sanction for filing of appeal without reading the provisions under Section 42 of the POCSO Act"
The court, therefore, directed that an Enquiry Report in a sealed cover be submitted.
Case Title: State v Shashikant Jogi [CRA-6751-2023]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 265
For State: Government Advocate Manas Mani Verma