Delhi High Court objected to the trial court acquitting 2 men found in possession of child pornography
May 11, 2024 2024-07-05 12:52Delhi High Court objected to the trial court acquitting 2 men found in possession of child pornography
Delhi High Court objected to the trial court acquitting 2 men found in possession of child pornography
By Jeevak Mukherjee
The Delhi High Court has converted a public interest litigation (PIL) into a suo motu revision petition, asserting that a sessions court’s decision to discharge two individuals accused of child pornography constituted a miscarriage of justice. The division bench’s order responded to a PIL challenging a September 2023 sessions court ruling that acquitted two defendants under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The accused were allegedly involved in circulating, storing, and viewing child sexual abuse material via social media groups.
The petitioner, Tulir Charitable Trust, also urged for the formulation of guidelines to aid courts handling cases of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) involving unidentified children, whether online or offline.
After a First Information Report was lodged, a search in November 2021 yielded a phone and a hard disk from the suspects’ residences. Subsequent investigations uncovered 34 videos on one mobile phone, 14 on a hard disk, and 25 on another phone, all depicting children in explicit scenarios. The sessions court’s rationale for discharging the accused stemmed from their inability to ascertain the ages of the children in the pornographic material, rendering POCSO inapplicable due to the children being “unidentified and untraceable.”
In response, a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora critiqued the sessions court’s findings as rife with legal flaws and causing a miscarriage of justice. The High Court noted the sessions court’s disregard for the definition of child pornography crucial for invoking the POCSO Act and its dismissal of medical opinions confirming some individuals were minors.
Asserting its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 and 401 of the CrPC, the High Court directed the PIL be treated as a suo motu revision petition to be heard by a single judge bench on May 21. Advocate Aashaa Tiwari was appointed amicus curiae to assist the bench, with the petitioner’s counsel also permitted to contribute. The court issued notices to the accused individuals questioning the sessions court’s order, stressing that its observations were preliminary, allowing all parties to present their arguments before the single judge bench. During proceedings, the bench queried the CBI about any appeals against the sessions court ruling, to which the agency responded negatively, citing ongoing proceedings under the Information Technology Act and IPC provisions on criminal conspiracy.
The High Court also clarified that while PILs in criminal matters are typically discouraged, it found no need for additional guidelines, affirming existing legal frameworks’ sufficiency in addressing such cases.
Case: Tulir Charitable Trust vs Union of India: Delhi High Court
Citation: W.P.(CRL) 1196/2024 & CRL.M.A 11560-115611/2024
