By Shazia Siddiqui

In a recent decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction of an individual under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, reinforcing stringent stances on offenses against minors. This case involved the appellant’s challenge to a trial court’s decision convicting him for the sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl, invoking the plea of unsoundness of mind as his defense.

The background of the case reveals that the trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. This section specifically addresses aggravated penetrative sexual assault against children below the age of 12. The trial court found substantial evidence to conclude that the appellant committed the crime and rejected his defense under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the plea of insanity.

On appeal, the appellant contended that the trial court erred in not accepting his claim of insanity. He argued that his mental condition at the time of the crime should exempt him from liability. However, the High Court, after careful consideration, upheld the trial court’s ruling. The Court meticulously examined whether the appellant, due to his mental state, could comprehend the nature of his actions or distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the offense.

The High Court drew upon the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1964). This ruling clarifies that while the prosecution must prove the accused’s mens rea (criminal intent) beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proving the defense of insanity also rests on the accused. The Court emphasized that mere claims of insanity are insufficient unless convincingly demonstrated that the accused was genuinely incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of his act.

During the trial and subsequent appeal, the Court observed the appellant’s behavior, noting his apparent understanding of the charges and his guilty demeanor. When questioned, he showed awareness and guilt, which the Court interpreted as indicative of his mental capacity to comprehend the gravity of his actions. These observations undermined the appellant’s argument of being mentally unfit at the time of the crime.

The Division Bench highlighted the importance of protecting minors and stated that leniency cannot be granted in cases involving such severe offenses against children. They asserted that the evidence presented by the prosecution formed a complete chain of circumstances, unequivocally pointing to the appellant’s guilt. The Court noted, “The chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to one conclusion that it was the accused/appellant who has committed the aforesaid crime.”

The High Court ruled that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. It confirmed that the trial court’s findings were based on solid evidence, and there was no merit in the appellant’s plea of insanity. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the stringent measures of the POCSO Act aimed at protecting children from heinous crimes. This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding minors and ensuring that offenders cannot escape liability through unsubstantiated claims of mental incapacity.

Case Title: XYZ v. State of Chhattisgarh 

Neutral Citation: 2024:CGHC:20556-DB

Click here to read/Download the judgement