|
The Supreme Court recently observed that the tendency to file chargesheets in cases where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system, as it forces courts to spend time on trials likely to result in acquittal. A bench of Justices N Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan clarified that, though there is no way to predict whether a case will result in conviction or acquittal, the State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, as this compromises the right to a fair process.
"This diverts limited judicial resources from handling stronger, more serious cases, contributing to massive case backlogs. Undoubtedly, there can be no analysis at the charge framing stage as to whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal, but the fundamental principle is that the State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, as it compromises the right to a fair process", the Court noted. The observation came while the court discharged a Kolkata-based man wrongfully accused of having committed the offence of voyeurism under the Indian Penal Code. The Court clarified that, as per the IPC, the offence of voyeurism could be invoked only when a man watches or captures a woman while she is engaging in a private act. The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by an accused man challenging the trial court's decision to dismiss his application seeking discharge. The case originated from allegations that on March 18, 2020, when the complainant, accompanied by her friend and some workmen, attempted to enter a property, the accused intimidated them and prevented their entry. She further claimed that he clicked her photographs and recorded videos on his mobile phone without consent, thereby intruding on her privacy and outraging her modesty. After completing the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet on August 16, 2020, for offences under Sections 341, 354C and 506 IPC, even though the complainant had conveyed her unwillingness to record a judicial statement. The accused argued that the FIR was lodged at the instigation of Amalendu Biswas, who was allegedly trying to dispossess him and his father from ownership of a property over which the duo had already received an injunction from the trial court in their favour. He claimed the complainant had entered the property with anti-social elements to aid this attempted dispossession. He also pointed out that the complainant, faced criminal charges in other cases, including offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, and reiterated that she was not a tenant and had wrongfully entered the property. He emphasised that the chargesheet contained no document proving any tenancy in her favour. After considering submissions, the apex court discharged the man of the offences he was accused of and ordered that criminal proceedings against him could not continue. (ANI)
|
