The High Court proceeded to set aside the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt.
However, the High Court did not proceed to convict the accused upon noticing that the trial court had framed charges wrongly.
Instead of framing a charge for aggravated penetrative sexual assault (punishable with a minimum sentence of 20 years in jail) under Section 5 (n) (sexual assault by a relative or a person living in the same shared household) of the POCSO Act, the trial court had cited a charge of penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 (which is punishable with a minimum sentence of 10 years in jail).
Therefore, the High Court remanded the matter back to the trial court.
“The accused/respondent No.1 cannot be convicted under a provision of law prescribing higher punishment without giving him an opportunity … In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the matter be remanded back to the Trial Court for re-framing the charge,” the Court said.
The accused was, therefore, ordered to appear before the trial court on April 22, and the trial court was ordered to conclude the trial preferably within three months thereafter.
With these observations, the State’s appeal challenging the trial court’s earlier acquittal was allowed.
Source: Barandbench
