Rajasthan High Court has set aside the conviction of a man (appellant) convicted by the Special POCSO Court on the ground that when appellant’s counsel refused to appear, instead of appointing an Amicus Curiae at that instance, the trial court closed the evidence.

The Division Bench of Judge Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta noted that if counsel refused to appear for the accused, it was the duty of the court to appoint Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.

The court heard the criminal appeal filed by the appellant who was convicted and sentenced under the POCSO Act.

Amicus Curiae argued on behalf of the appellant that due to the district court’s failure to appoint an Amicus Curiae when the appellant’s counsel failed to appear on his behalf, cross-examination of two key witnesses could not take place in the case.

On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the government that there was a refusal on the part of the appellant’s counsel to cross-examine, so that the court had no alternative but to strike out the evidence.

The Court agreed with the Amicus Curiae submission and noted that when the Appellant’s counsel refused to appear, the Court closed the evidence and then turned to the District Legal Services Authority to appoint an Amicus Curiae. But on the date when there was no lawyer to represent the appellant, the evidence was closed without the accused being given any opportunity for cross-examination.

The court held that it was the binding duty of the court to appoint Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial and directions were given for the appointment of an Amicus Curiae for the appellant, the recall of the two witnesses and the permission of their cross-examination.

Title: Entered against the state of Rajasthan

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 375

Click here to read/download order