The Kerala High Court has held that the culpable mental state of the accused cannot be considered at the pre-trial stage when the prosecution establishes a prima facie case.
The case in question dealt with whether the culpable mental state under the POCSO Act could be considered during the discharge or quashment of proceedings against the accused.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the culpable mental state of the accused cannot be grounds for discharge or quashing proceedings when the prosecution’s evidence prima facie supports the alleged offences, warranting the framing of charges and proceeding to trial.
“After the trial, once the prosecution has fulfilled its initial burden to prove the commission of the offences with the necessary elements, a reverse burden is placed on the accused to demonstrate that they lacked the ‘culpable mental state’ to commit the offence with sexual intent. Therefore, ‘culpable mental state’ is a matter that cannot be considered at the pre-trial stage, whether in a proceeding for quashment of the crime or at the time of discharge. However, quashment or discharge can be considered at the pre-trial stage if the prosecution materials do not substantiate the offences alleged by the prosecution.”
The revision petitioner, an 80-year-old advocate, was accused of committing sexual assault on a 12-year-old boy who had visited the petitioner’s office. The allegation was that the accused opened the boy’s zipper and touched his penis, constituting sexual assault under Section 7 and punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
The Special Court had dismissed the petitioner’s application for discharge, leading to the filing of a revision petition before the High Court.
The High Court held that touching a child’s penis with sexual intent constitutes an offence under Section 7, punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s act of holding the victim’s penis and commenting on its size was an overt act done with sexual intent. In contrast, the petitioner claimed that there was no sexual intent.
The Court noted that Section 30 of the POCSO Act presumes the culpable mental state of the accused before the trial begins. The accused can present a defense to prove the absence of culpable mental state during the trial, but only after the prosecution has met its initial burden of proof.
The Court concluded that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the accused, and thus, discharge could not be granted. It emphasized that the question of whether the accused had the culpable mental state or sexual intent to commit the alleged offences is a matter of evidence to be evaluated during the trial, not at the pre-trial stage.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming that the dismissal of the discharge petition by the Special Court was justified.