The Supreme Court on Friday had given its judgment on the case it Sunita Devi versus The State of Bihar.
The case started with the criminal appeal which was filed by the informant against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna in which they had directed the special judge to conduct a de Novo trial and while making more observations about the judgment and especially against the Learned special judge. The Division Bench of the High Court was totally against the approach of the special judge which was there during the trial.
With this dissatisfaction which was there due to this order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna. A criminal appeal was filed by the learned special judge , who conducted the trial and one more criminal appeal was also filed by the judge of the special court where the learned judge had aggrieved over the remarks which were put up by the High Court in related to the trial and also requested the Hon’ble chief Justice of the Patna High Court to consider that whether the Judicial Officer should be assigned the function of holding sessions trial which have far reaching consequences, while sending him for fresh training to the State Judicial Academy.
Various issues were discussed by both the parties to justify their point regarding this complex issue which is related to the trial done by the learned special judge. During the hearing and trial of this criminal appeal which was filed by the learned special judge had also emphasized on the importance of a fair trial. It was told that how the concept of fair trial is very much important in a democracy and how it can help in improving a society as a whole.
The Supreme Court after hearing the points and facts of both the sides of appellant and respondent had said in their judgment that :
“ On the application filed seeking intervention over the action taken on the administrative side, it is for the appellant to approach the High Court. It is an administrative action taken and, therefore, the same does not require any interference on the judicial side by us, especially in light of the discussion made above. Suffice it is to state that liberty is given to the appellant to approach the High Court on the administrative side.”
The bench comprised of justice M.M. Sundress and Justice G.V.N. Bhatti had said that the Trial Court should keep the mandate of the POCSO Act, 2012 in their mind while recording the evidence of the victim. The Trial Court should also consider section 35 of the POCSO Act, 2012 while doing the recording. The Court further ordered the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Ministry of Law Department of the Government of India immediately.
CASE NAME- SUNITA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
WRITTEN BY DAKSH SRIVASTAV, B.A.LLB, G.D. GOENKA UNIVERSITY, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments