Duty to defend: A lawyer has moral obligation to represent the unpopular client - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Legally Speaking

Duty to defend: A lawyer has moral obligation to represent the unpopular client

Jayant Malik

Published

on

Maintenance of law and order within a society is of utmost importance and lawyers play a key role in ensuring that law and order is maintained. The profession of a lawyer is a noble one and a lawyer is often seen as someone who fights for the rights of individuals and defends them in the trickiest of situations. But a lawyer is not always applauded or appreciated for his acts and many a times he faces condemnation from the society for defending the guilty or who is often called as the “unpopular client”. So it can be said that the lawyer is equated to both the God and the Devil depending upon the situation.

Even within the Indian legal system the situation is no different. Often the lawyers (especially the criminal lawyers) who decide to defend a client irrespective of the offence they have committed howsoever grave it is, face condemnation and public outrage for their decision of defending such a client. Moreover it is not just the public front from where they face the heat, but they also face fury from the media houses at times. All in all, on several occasions the lawyer is associated to the actions of his client due to which he faces such condemnation. This gives rise to a very important issue i.e. whether the lawyers should be guided by ethical values and notions of justice while selecting to represent any client?.

In this piece I shall deal with this issue and discuss the whole idea of the duty that a lawyer has, to defend his client in great detail along with a client’s right to legal representation. Moreover, I would argue as to why it is important for the lawyers to represent their clients even though they are considered as unpopular clients. Over the years there has been a lot of debate on whether it is morally right for a lawyer to represent an accused. Indian society has most of the times looked down upon such advocates who have decided to defend the accused. 

Through this piece, I would further discuss the concept of “Cab Rank Rule” and would analyse why it becomes important for the lawyer to represent a client irrespective of the guilt of the accused and the thinking of the society. The piece would further throw some light on several landmark judgments wherein the criminal lawyers defended unpopular clients and fulfilled their duty and moral obligation of being a lawyer. Cases where the lawyers defended the accused irrespective of the fact that, they knew the accused had committed the offence and the whole society was against them, such as defending Ajmal Kasab, the terrorist who was involved in the 26/11 attacks, the rapists in the Nirbhaya Rape Case, the case that shook the entire nation and several such other matters. In the end, I would conclude by arguing in favour of a lawyer’s duty to defend and would try and devise a new defensive strategy that can be adopted by the lawyers to justify their actions and to fight against the moral condemnation that they face by the society or the media whenever they defend an unpopular client. 

CLIENT’S RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION:

While discussing a lawyer’s duty and the moral obligation that he has to defend his client, it is very important to understand that a client is also entitled to legal aid and representation and it becomes essential to discuss a lawyer’s duty to defend vis-à-vis a client’s right to legal representation. An individual is entitled to legal aid and representation and at times when a situation arises where the person who is in need of legal aid is not that financially sound then in such situations there are instruments which state that such person has right to free legal aid. There are several international instruments that provide for an individual’s right to legal aid and representation.

First, it is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR). A declaration that came into force so as to protect the basic human rights of the individuals. The UDHR has emphasized a lot on the welfare of poor and one of the main objectives of it has been to protect the basic fundamental rights of the people. If the Preamble of the Declaration is looked at carefully it recognises that the rights of the individuals are indeed the foundation of freedom, justice and peace. From its language it is pretty much evident that equality and justice are the main objectives of the declaration and that providing legal aid to the needy becomes sine-qua-non for the achievement of the objective enshrined in the preamble of the UDHR. Some of the relevant articles of the UDHR are Article 1, 7 and 10.

Article 1 mainly focusses on the aspect of equality in dignity and rights. Equality is very essential and even social justice is intrinsically connected to it. Therefore, promoting equality helps in providing legal aid to everyone. Article 7 is even more relevant since it provides that each and every individual is equal before the law and everyone is entitled to legal protection and legal aid without any discrimination. It also states that no person should be denied legal protection and representation just because he does not have the financial capacity and in such situations it is the duty of the state to provide all such people who are in need even if it is out of state expenditure. Moreover it is important to note that several articles of the Indian Constitution hold a close similarity with this provision such as Article 14, 15, 16 and 39A. Article 10 is also pretty relevant as it provides that everyone should get an opportunity to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal in determination of his rights. Additionally, ‘hearing’ means that the aggrieved person should be heard through a counsel (lawyer). Furthermore, Article 50 of the Indian Constitution holds similarity with this with this provision of the UDHR and is based on a similar concept.

Another international instrument that mandates legal aid and equality before the courts is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 14(1) of the ICCPR explicitly provides that all the persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.

Moreover, Article 14(3) lists out certain minimum guarantees that an individual is entitled to while determination of any criminal charge against him, in full equality:

To be informed promptly the nature and cause of the charge against him;

To have an adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;

To be tried without undue delay;

To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;

Now looking at the Indian perspective, Article 39A of the Indian Constitution provides for the right to legal aid and representation. It provides that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

Importantly, we must consider the case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, a landmark judgment, where the Supreme Court held in favour of the under trial prisoners who were imprisoned for long periods without any justification. Moreover the key take away from the case is that Article 39A is a constitutional directive that emphasizes on the fact that free legal aid and a proper representation is an essential element of the ‘reasonable, fair and just’ procedure. Further this right is to be considered implicit in the guarantee of Article 21.

THE MORAL OBLIGATION OF LAWYER TO DEFEND THE UNPOPULAR CLIENT

As discussed above the lawyer’s duty to defend arises out of a client’s right to legal aid and representation. Even the individuals who have been accused of committing heinous crimes also have right to legal aid and representation and are entitled to have a fair and just trial.

“Innocent until proven Guilty” is a well-known saying which implies that any individual cannot be convicted for a crime until he is proven guilty of committing the said offence. According to this, the onus of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution and the job of the defence counsel is to poke holes in the theory of the prosecution. Consequently, a defence lawyer plays an important role during a legal proceeding. But at times the defence lawyers face the heat of the public and media for defending clients who have been accused of committing heinous crimes such as rape, murder, an act of terrorism etc. and in such situations the dilemma that arises is “whether a lawyer should be guided by ethical values and notion of justice while selecting to represent any client” or “whether a lawyer should be affected by personal opinions and public opinions while choosing to represent a client”.

Especially in India, it is even more relevant because the public more often than not associates a lawyer to the actions of his client and questions his moral and ethical values. Moreover, the public condemns the lawyer who chooses to represent a client that is unpopular or who has committed a grave offence. In response to the aforementioned dilemma, it is first important to understand that a lawyer is an officer of the court and it is his duty to defend his client irrespective of the offence that the client has committed. In other words, a lawyer has not only a moral but also a legal and constitutional obligation to defend his clients to the best of his abilities and that a lawyer cannot allow his personal beliefs or morals to affect his professional duties. This obligation is based out of an English concept known as the “cab-rank” principle/rule.

CAB RANK PRINCIPLE

The “cab-rank” principle basically states that every lawyer must accept the brief that comes before them and provide the necessary legal assistance unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise. The principle is based on the idea of a cab driver who is standing at the head of a queue at a taxi stand and is supposed to offer his services to the first passenger who approaches for a ride.

It is also pertinent to note that Section 1 of the Advocates Act explicitly mentions about the duties of an advocate towards his client and its rule 11 is based on the “cab-rank” principle. So the “cab-rank” rule has some relevance within the Indian legal system as well. Rule 11 of the Advocates act provides that “An advocate is bound to accept any brief in the Courts or Tribunals or before any other authorities in or before which he proposes to practise at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case: “Special circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a particular brief”. This provision within the Advocates act makes it pretty much clear that the lawyer has a moral obligation to represent his client irrespective of the offence that he has committed. Usually in the practical world, it is not followed though. At times the lawyers refuses to take up a particular case because he fears that taking up such a case would invite public outrage or where he himself feels that his personal morals would not allow him to defend such a client. There have been various landmark cases where either the lawyers refused to take up the case or they faced massive public outrage for defending the accused.

One such case is the case of Ajmal Amir Kasab, the only terrorist who was captured alive during the 26/11 attacks. There was a massive public outrage which was quite understandable considering the horrendous crime that he had committed killing hundreds of innocent people, but does that mean that he should have been hanged straight away without following the due process of law? The answer to it is “No”. An individual who is a dreaded terrorist also has a right to fair trial even if the offence that he has committed and charges that have been levelled against him are as clear as a daylight. In this case the Bombay metropolitan magistrate’s court bar association unanimously decided not to represent the terrorist in court and hence the government appointed Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran as a state appointed amicus curiae in the case. Post the verdict while giving an interview, Senior Advocate Ramachandran acknowledged the lawyer’s duty to defend and stated “when an accused is undefended the court appoints a lawyer to defend him. To refuse to assist the court, when asked, is a dereliction of duty”. He further emphasized on the fact that within an adversarial system it is important for an accused to have counsel for a fair trial. He stated that a counsel is important for an accused because the accused has a right to assert his or her innocence and to poke holes in the case of the prosecution. The counsel must say everything in the favour of the accused that needs to be said.

Another prominent criminal lawyer, late shri. Ram Jethmalani also pressed on the fact that no lawyer can refuse to defend an accused until and unless there are compelling reasons for the same and it is the moral duty of a lawyer to provide his services to the accused howsoever unpopular he is. With several lawyers declining to take up the case of the terrorist Ajmal Kasab and denying to provide their services back in 2008, Mr. Ram Jethmalani stated that “there is express rule of Bar Council of India that no lawyer shall refuse to defend a person on the grounds that it will make him unpopular”. Further in an interview he state that “no lawyer has the right to say that he will not defend an accused”. So it is pretty evident that over the years, even the biggest names in the business, have advocated for a lawyer’s duty to defend even though they faced heat of the public and media for defending an unpopular client.

If we look at the Nirbhaya Rape case wherein the four accused were hanged previous year, the situation was a bit different. The lawyers representing the accused in the case gave their all to reduce the death penalty to life imprisonment and to delay the hanging. They tried their best to make a strong case for the accused even though it was an open and shut case. Although the ‘public speeches’ and ‘conduct’ of some of the Nirbhaya Lawyers may be problematic in the eyes of the people, however, they did succeed in providing qualitative legal representation to the convicts throughout the judicial proceedings. In this way, the lawyers representing the accused fulfilled their moral obligation and their duty to defend the accused despite the fact that the crime they committed was a heinous one.

CONCLUSION

In my opinion, the lawyer has a duty to defend an accused irrespective of the crime that he has committed. It is not that a terrorist or a rapist should not be punished for the crime that they have committed but punishing them is the duty of the court when there guilt is proved. A lawyer’s duty is to provide his services to the client and put in his best effort when representing the client. It is also important because if an accused be it a terrorist or rapist is not given a proper representation or an opportunity to present his case, then the fairness of the trial would come into question. When it comes to public outrage or a parallel media trial, a lawyer should not that take that into consideration while choosing a client and instead they should give priority to their professional duties. Lawyers are officers of the court and their primary duty is to provide assistance and aid to their clients and assist the court in deciding the guilt or innocence of individuals. In conclusion, I would like to recall the with wise words of the legendary criminal lawyer late Sh. Ram Jethmalani: “I decide according to my conscience who to defend. A lawyer who refuses to defend a person on the ground that people believe him to be guilty is himself guilty of professional misconduct.”

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Legally Speaking

‘The crime committed has to be considered in the remission or premature policy of the state’

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the case Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah, Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat observed that where the crime was committed has to be considered in the remission which is applicable in the State and the pre­mature release in terms of the policy

The Court noted while hearing the writ petition that in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this Court once the crime was committed in the State of Gujarat, after the trial been concluded and judgment of conviction came to be passed, all further proceedings have to be 6 considered including remission or pre­mature release, as the case may be, in the instance case. under Section 432(7) CrPC, there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments, can be either the Central or the State Government of the appropriate government.

in terms of Section 432(7) CrPC, the trial was to be concluded in the same State and ordinarily in the State of Gujrat the crime in the instant case was admittedly committed. by an order 06.08.2004., the case was transferred in exceptional circumstances by this Court for limited purpose for trial and disposal to the neighbouring State i.e., the State of Maharashtra, observed by the bench of Apex Court.

As mentioned by the petitioner in the plea that by judgment impugned dated 17.07.2019., the application for pre­mature release has to be filed in the State of Maharashtra and not in the State of Gujarat and His petition filed in the High Court of Gujarat was dismissed taking note of Section 432(7) CrPC on the premise that since the trial has been concluded in the State of Maharashtra. under Sections 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petition was filled by the petitioner for premature release further the petitioner stated that that he had undergone under the custody of more than 15 years 4 months.

Section 302, 376(2) (e) (g) and reading it with Section 149 IPC, Shah was found guilty for the offence, the offence committed by him in the State of Gujrat.

The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and the justice Vikram Nath observed that under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments of that appropriate government.

The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and the justice Vikram Nath observed that under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments of that appropriate government.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Seeking reduction of qualifying the percentile for admission in ayurveda course: A plea in Supreme Court

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the Case Amit Kumar v UOI & Or’s observed in Ayurveda course in view of large number of vacancies and for seeking reduction of qualifying percentile for admission, an ayurveda aspirant who appeared in NEET 2021 has approached the Court.

the court had observed that lowering the minimum marks and reducing the percentile for admission to first year BDS Course would not amount to lowing the standards of Education and further the Court directed to lower the percentile mark by 10 percentiles for admission in first year of BDS Course for academic year 2020-2021, with regards to substantive the contentions made by the petitioner by referring the judgement passed in the case in Harshit Agarwal & Or’s v Union of India.

the percentile may also be reduced for Ayurveda programme enabling the Petitioner to take admissions then If percentile is being reduced/considered for reduction for BDS course was further stated by the petitioner in the plea, while referring to an order dated 04.29.2022. Thereafter the top Court had asked Centre to consider lowering the percentile for BDS Courses.

Seeking the Centre’s response in a plea by filing a counter affidavit, noted by the Top Court specifying the above-mentioned information:

after deducting the admission granted for MBBS Courses (BDS Courses), the total number of Candidates.

in All India Quota and State Quota, the totals number of vacant seats.

in government colleges on one hand & private/deemed colleges on the other hand, the number of seats which are remaining.

the petition was filed through AOR Neeraj Shekhar and for the petitioner Advocate Shivam Singh appeared.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Bank case rejected by Supreme Court against farmer

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the case Bank of Maharashtra & Or’s v Mohanlal Patidar observed an order given by the High Courts of directing the bank the OTS proposal given by a farmer who had availed a loan from the bank, the court further pulled up the Bank of Maharashtra for challenging the order.

The Bank shall complete remaining formalities and provide all consequential benefits flowing therefrom to the petitioners, the court further stated that it is needless to emphasize The OTS proposal given by the petitioners in both the cases shall be accepted by the Bank and ‘sanction letters’ be issued forthwith, the court allowed the petitioner plea.

The petitioner not only promptly challenged the said order, it is noteworthy that petitioner never acceded to the unilateral decision dated 25th August 2021 and even otherwise the letter dated 25th August 2021 is held to be illegal by us, clause-7 of policy cannot take away the fruits of OTS benefits, within two months from the date of issuance of order dated 22th September 2021, the petitioner filled the instant petition and further the court directed we are unable to give stamp of approval to the impugned orders and action of the Bank, observed by the bench comprising of Justice Sujoy Paul and the justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal while setting aside the impugned orders of the bank.

In an order dated 03.09.2021 it was stated and it showed that the petitioner was required to pay minimum 10% of the OTS amount within stipulated time and that he had deposited Rs.35,00,000/- out of Rs.36,50,000/- within the stipulated time, it was argued before the court by the counsel.

As full and final settlement of the dues, he will be required to deposit Rs.50.50 lakhs as he was informed by the Asset Recovery Branch of the Bank.

Whole law comes into place when a matter of farmers come as the down payment were also accepted and it was further stated by the bench in an oral remark You don’t file cases against the ones who loot 1000s of crores.

The respondent had obtained a loan and intended to pay it in terms of a One Time Settlement which was quantified as Rs 3650000/-. in furtherance thereof the respondent had deposited Rs 35,00,000 with the bank, in the above-mentioned matter.

The bank had miserably failed to accept the same and on the contrary, decided to enhance the compromise amount to Rs.50.50 lakhs unilaterally which was contrary to the OTS scheme, contended by the counsel further the counsel stated that the bank had miserably failed to accept the same and on the contrary, decided to enhance the compromise amount to Rs.50.50 lakhs unilaterally which was contrary to the OTS scheme.

The bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and the justice Surya Kant observed and remarked while dismissing the plea assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated 02.21.2022 Such a litigation in Supreme Court will spoil the families of farmers financially, Go after bigger fish.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

In Company Law the duomatic principle is applicable even in Indian context: Supreme Court

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the case Mahima Datla vs Renuka Datla observed and stated that it will be applicable even in the Indian context, if the same is consented by all members ‘strict adherence to a statutory requirement may be dispensed with if it is demonstrated in the Duomatic Principle.

It was therefore held that G.V. Rao never seized to be a Director of the Company in view of the acquiescence by Dr. Datla and he had withdrawn his resignation prior to its acceptance, the resignation dated 6th April 2013 was clearly not accepted by Mr. G.V. Rao, as it is clearly being showed by her conduct and there is overwhelming evidence to show that Dr. Datla had accepted Mr. G.V. Rao back into the Board, in this case the court noted.

anything the members of a company can do by formal resolution in a general meeting, they can also do informally, if all of them assent to it, as stated briefly in the Duomatic Principle as derived from the decision In Re: Duomatic Ltd further the court noted the case of Salmon v. Salmon Co. Ltd, as it was held in that case if a company is bound in a matter intra vires by the unanimous agreement of its members. As In Re the court noted that the Duomatic Principle as derived from the decision.

Mr. G.V. Rao continued to carry on as the Director in view of the acquiescence by Dr. Renuka Datla? And weather can the Duomatic Principle can be invoked to state that the issue of resignation of the Director had lapsed, as one of the issues being raise in the appeal filled before the Apex Court.

The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh allowed the Company appeal filed by Dr. Datla and the court further issued the various directions as this petition was dismiised by the Board as only to ensure Dr. Datla doesn’t have sufficient shareholding to maintain a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1950, as it was being approached by Dr. Datla to the Company Law Board complaining that the holding of board meetings was illegal as an attempt was made to increase the number of members in the Company.

there is no protest by Dr. Renuka Datla regarding attendance of Mr. G.V. Rao. Dr. Renuka Datla also participated in the Board Meetings dated 22nd August 2013 and 25th September 2013, without any protest for continuation of Mr. G.V. Rao as its Director as in the resolution passed. The latter which was placed in the meeting of the Board on 9th April 2013, seeking withdrawal of his resignation as on 6th April 2013, G.V Rao submitted his resignation letter and further which it was later withdrawn by G.V Rao on 9th April 2013. As on 20th March 2013 the late Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla as the directors of the Company were Biological E. Ltd are Dr. Renuka Datla and one G.V Rao.

The bench comprising of Justice Vineet Saran and the justice JK Maheshwari clarified that the said principle is only applicable in those cases wherein bona fide transactions are involved and that ‘Fraud’ is a clear exception.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

SUPREME COURT ASKS WEST BENGAL GOVERNMENT TO LOOK INTO REPORT OF OLDER WOMEN PUSHED INTO PROSTITUTION AFTER COVID IN SOUTH 24 PARGANAS

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the case Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal and Or’s observed that women of older age groups are being forced into prostitution after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and further the court ordered the State of West Bengal to look into the issue that in South 24 Parganas District of West Bengal.

The traffickers who were finding it difficult to get hold of young women due to the lockdown had shifted focus and by taking advantage of their acute poverty which was being worsened by the pandemic engaged older women from West Bengal’s costa regions in prostitution. An article was referred by the Amicus, The Article covered the plight of the women in the Sunderban Delta region of West Bengal and stated and noted that the pandemic coupled with climate change is now pushing older women and even the grandmothers into the trade, the Article was published on the website of The Print.

The pandemic that has stretched on for more than two years, it was said by the activists working in the area and this made them vulnerable to traffickers who found it difficult to procure young women and minor girls and shifted focus to middle aged women from West Bengal’s coastal regions due to their abject poverty.

No precautionary measure are taken by the State Government though the State Government is aware it further request the State Government to look upon the issue as due to the pandemic In South 24 Parganas (West Bengal), aged women are being used for this purpose for their poverty.

The Bench asked the Counsel representing the State of West Bengal to look into this issue and respond when the matter is put up for hearing on 05.17.2022., At the request of the Amicus the bench directed.

The Bench Comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and the justice B.R. Gavai observed that the older women in South 24 Parganas District of West Bengal, from poor families, especially after the onset of the pandemic, are being pushed into prostitution and the Amicus further alleged though the State Government aware of the same but the State Government have not taken any precautionary measures. The Bench noted while hearing a plea seeking various benefits for sex workers across the country, Amicus Curaie, Mr. Piyush K. Roy apprised it that, as per news reports.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Supreme Court sets aside POCSO conviction; TN custom is of marriage of girl with maternal uncle

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the case K Dhandapani vs State observed while hearing a plea that after noticing that he had married the prosecutrix and had two children, a man accused in a POCSO case, the court set aside the conviction.

The Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. Thereafter the Court said that it has been informed of the custom in Tamil Nādu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle. if the accused-appellant does not take proper care of the prosecutrix, she or the State on behalf of the prosecutrix can move for modification of this Order, further being clarified by the Court. The bench is of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court, while considering the facts and circumstances of the Case.

The Court observed, while allowing the appeal that the marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix is not legal and it was submitted by the state in an appeal that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and the second child was born when she was 17 years.

the prosecutrix stated that she has two children and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life, the statement given by her was being noticed by the Court. the allegations submitted by the

the appellant against him was that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her and that he married the prosecutrix and they have two children, submitted before the Apex Court.

Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and reading with the Sections 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6, 5(I) read with Section 6 and 5(n). the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix who is the accused in the said case was being convicted under the said sections and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the Madras High Court.

The Bench comprising of Justice L Nageswara Rao and the justice B R Gavai observed while rejecting the objection raised by the State which contended that the marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment that the court have been informed about the custom in Tamil Nādu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle and on the ground of reality and to disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix, The Court cannot shut its eyes.

Continue Reading

Trending