Calcutta High Court: In a petition wherein suo motu rule was issued due to the false allegations made by the complainant mother and her minor daughter, a Division Judge Bench of Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray, JJ. directed the POCSO Special Court to file a criminal proceeding against the complainant mother and her minor daughter if it is found that they had been responsible for furnishing false evidence under Section 192 of the Penal Code1, 1860 (‘IPC’).
Background
The accused persons were charged under Sections 3412/376-D3 of IPC and also under Sections 4/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) for allegedly committing rape on the minor daughter of the complainant (mother) and were arrested.
They had been in judicial custody for almost one year. However, while the Court was adjudicating a bail application of the accused on 13-06-2024, the mother of the minor girl submitted that she had lodged a complaint against the accused persons on false allegations of rape and that at the time when the minor girl’s statement was being recorded, the minor girl had falsely implicated the accused persons due to political pressure.
After considering the contention of the complainant, the Court found that the issue regarding false allegations against the accused persons was very serious. The Court granted bail to the accused persons and issued suo motu rule asking the minor girl and the mother to show cause as to why necessary legal proceedings shall not be initiated against them.
The mother filed her response to the rule wherein she put forth an unconditional apology for whatever was done by her and her minor daughter. She also specifically stated that she was compelled to make a false complaint due to tremendous pressure of the local political leaders.
The mother said that since her husband was an ailing person who had been bedridden since 2017, they had a very limited source of income and had to depend largely on different grants sponsored by the State government under various social schemes.
It was submitted by the mother that in July of 2023, some of the local political leaders approached her for making up a false story against the accused persons because they had switched their allegiance from the ruling party to the opposition party. She further said that, the people who approached her also said that if she agreed to the proposal, her family would be included in many other social schemes from where they could get more grants.
The mother said that due to mounting pressure and repeated persuasions even after her initial refusal, she had to agree to the proposal of the people who approached her. Thereafter, the mother approached the authorities to lodge the false complaint on 08-08-2023 and her daughter’s statement was recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore, Murshidabad on 17-08-2023.
After the elections were over, the mother realized that the above-mentioned political persons were not worried about the outcome of the case as they had already reaped their political benefit.
The prosecution contended that the minor girl was not a minor and that she was a married lady who had been divorced twice. It was also mentioned that the protective umbrella created for the protection of child victims under the POCSO Act, 2012 was being misused by people.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that even if minor victims made false allegations, they would be protected by Section 22(2) of the POCSO Act. However, the Court said that if a victim misleads the authority regarding her age and persuades them to take legal action against an innocent person, the benefit of the provisions as envisaged under Section 22(2) of the POCSO Act would not be available to such a victim who was not a minor at the time of lodging the false complaint.
The Court considered it necessary to reiterate that poverty could not be a ground for lodging false complaints against innocent persons. The Court found that the mother and her daughter appeared to have fabricated evidence under Section 192 of IPC.
Further, the Court recognized that they were hearing the bail application of the accused persons and stated that the case against the mother and her minor daughter would be concluded in the court of the Special Judge under the POCSO Act. The Court also said that because it had been alleged that the age of the minor girl had been concealed at the time of making a false complaint, her actual age must also be ascertained by the Special Judge.
The Court stated that if it appeared that the girl was a major at the time of making the false complaint, the Special Judge should take appropriate action against her, without hesitation.
The Special Judge of the POCSO Court was directed by the Court to make a discreet enquiry regarding the false complaint of the mother and her minor daughter, the false statement given by them under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure4 (‘CrPC’), as well as submitting false evidence within the meaning of Section 192 of IPC.
The Court directed the Special POCSO Court of Murshidabad to file a complaint against the mother and/or her daughter under Section 340 CrPC5 for initiating a criminal proceeding against them, if it is found that they had fabricated false evidence under Section 192 of IPC.
While disposing of the suo motu rule issued, the Court requested the Registrar General to communicate this order to the Special POCSO Court with immediate effect.
[Court on its own motion v. X, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 8837, Decided on 24-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — None
For Respondent — Advocate Soumyajit Das Mahapatra
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 228 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
2. Section 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
3. Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
4. Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
5. Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
