Special POCSO courts under pressure to conclude trial due to long pendency of cases, says HC

It also asked the principal judge of the Dindoshi sessions court about steps taken to fill vacant posts in two designated courts under the sessions court since the pendency rate is “alarming”. The HC further sought bifurcation of the years since when the cases are pending.

Justice Bharati H Dangre was hearing the bail application of a man booked in a POCSO case in which the victim’s statement was recorded five years after the trial commenced. It was being argued through advocates B B Tiwari and Azimuddin N Kazi.

Newsletter | Click to get the day’s best explainers in your inbox

On June 21, maintaining that the manner in which special courts are proceeding with trials is defeating the purpose of special law, the bench had directed the principal judge of the sessions court in Mumbai to submit a report on the pending POCSO registered in the city. It had also sought to know how many POCSO courts have been designated as special courts and the number of cases pending before them.

On August 1, the bench referred to a report submitted by the principal judge – dated July 2 – which stated that there are seven designated POCSO courts in the sessions court in Mumbai city (main branch). Further, there are six POCSO courts under Dindoshi sessions court, two of which have not seen any appointments.

The bench said that since special courts are reeling under pressure to conclude trials, it was not uncommon that the case it was hearing is pending before a special court in Dindoshi, where the concerned judge is seized of 240 POCSO cases. Justice Dangre said that it was “startling” that the two courts were allotted 1,228 and 1,070 cases, respectively, in contrast two others that were allotted 128 and 116 POCSO cases, respectively.

The bench observed that one of the reasons for pendency appears to be “delay in recording statement of victim” as in present case, it was recorded after eight years of the incident. “Necessary directions are required to be issued to the magistrates in connection with recording a statement of the victim immediately, as the delay at times, changes the course of the trial.”

Further, the bench asked the special court to conclude the trial in the case it was hearing within six months, failing which, the applicant would be at liberty to request for release on bail on the ground of “long pendency of the case”.