Supreme Court Orders Retrial in POCSO Case Due to Procedural Lapses in Death Penalty Verdict

On February 2025, the Supreme Court of India remanded a POCSO case back to the Trial Court for a fresh examination of scientific experts, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial and proper legal procedures. The case involved criminal appeals challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision, which had upheld the death penalty for the accused. A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the trial was conducted in undue haste, without ensuring proper testimony from scientific experts, particularly regarding the DNA evidence. As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and directed the Trial Court to conduct a fresh trial, ensuring procedural fairness.

Background of the Case of POCSO case

The accused faced allegations under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. After his arrest, he remained in custody for four years. His bail applications were previously rejected by the High Court of MP, primarily due to the victim’s testimony against him and a DNA report purportedly linking him to the crime.

The case Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 150) involved the sexual assault of a minor, leading to a death sentence for the accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial was completed in less than two months, and the accused was sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court found serious procedural lapses, including the denial of proper legal representation and a fair opportunity to present a defence. Due to these flaws, the Court set aside the conviction and ordered a retrial.

Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025). In 2018, a woman filed an FIR stating that her granddaughter, a 3rd standard student, went missing from school. The police registered a case under Section 363 IPC (kidnapping) and began an investigation. The next day, the police received information from a witness who had seen a seriously injured child. The police reached the spot, found the girl in critical condition, and rushed her to the hospital for treatment. After receiving medical care, the child narrated the incident to the police. She stated that after school, while she was waiting outside, a man approached her and forcibly put a ladoo (sweet) in her mouth. He then took her to a secluded spot and called another male, where another man who was relative of accused joined him. According to the victim, the first man forcibly undressed and assaulted her, while the second man held her hands to stop her from resisting. During the investigation, the police analysed CCTV footage and noticed suspicious movements. The footage was shown to the victim’s relatives, who identified both the child and the accused persons. The accused were arrested, and a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, where the victim correctly identified both accused persons. They were then medically examined, and the case proceeded to trial. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to death. The High Court upheld their conviction and death sentence. However, the accused challenged the verdict in the Supreme Court, leading to a detailed examination of the case.

Sections Used in the POSCO Case & Their Explanation

In the case of Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), the Trial Court, on August 21, 2018, convicted the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018. The convictions and corresponding sentences were as follows:

Section 363 IPC: Punishment for kidnapping.
- Sentence: 7 years of imprisonment.
- Fine: ₹10,000.
- Additional Imprisonment in lieu of fine: 6 months.
Section 366-A IPC: Procuration of minor girl.
- Sentence: 7 years of imprisonment.
- Fine: ₹10,000.
- Additional Imprisonment in lieu of fine: 6 months.
Section 307 IPC: Attempt to murder.
- For appellant Irfan:
  - Sentence: Life Imprisonment (L.I.).
  - Fine: ₹10,000.
  - Additional Imprisonment in lieu of fine: 6 months.
- For appellant Asif (under Section 307/34 IPC):
  - Sentence: Life Imprisonment (L.I.).
  - Fine: ₹10,000.
  - Additional Imprisonment in lieu of fine: 6 months.
Section 376(DB) IPC: Punishment for gang rape on a woman under twelve years of age.
- Sentence: Death penalty (“To be hanged by the neck till death”).

Explanation of Each Section

Section 363 IPC: This section deals with the punishment for kidnapping any person from India or from lawful guardianship. The prescribed punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and liable to fine.
Section 366-A IPC: This section pertains to the offense of inducing any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with the intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced, or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. The punishment includes imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and fine.
Section 307 IPC: This section addresses the offense of attempt to murder. If any person does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Section 376(DB) IPC: This section specifies the punishment for gang rape on a woman under twelve years of age. The prescribed punishment is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.

These sections of POSCO case collectively address serious offenses, including kidnapping, procuration of a minor girl, attempt to murder, and gang rape of a minor, reflecting the gravity of the crimes committed in this case.

Supreme Court’s Observations & Remarks in POCSO case

The Supreme Court of India identified serious procedural lapses in POSCO case in the trial of the accused, particularly regarding the DNA evidence. The Court ruled that the trial was unfair as the scientific experts responsible for preparing the DNA report were not called to testify. This omission, according to the Supreme Court, led to a failure of justice and invalidated the trial. The Court stated:

“The failure of the trial Court to ensure the deposition of the scientific experts while relying upon the DNA report has definitely led to the failure of justice, thereby vitiating the trial.”

Directions Given by the Supreme Court in POCSO case

To ensure a fair trial, the Supreme Court ordered a fresh hearing in the Trial Court, with the following key directives:

Summoning of Scientific Experts: The scientific experts who prepared the DNA report must be summoned to testify in court. Their testimonies should be properly examined, allowing both the prosecution and defence to cross-examine them.
Legal Representation for the Accused: If the accused do not have a lawyer of their choice, the court must appoint a competent defence counsel with substantial experience, following the guidelines set in the Anokhilal case.
Re-examining the Accused Under Section 313 CrPC: After recording the testimony of the scientific experts, the accused must be questioned again under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This ensures they have a chance to respond to the fresh evidence against them.
Opportunity to Present a Defence: The accused must be given a fair opportunity to present their defence after the new evidence has been recorded.
Fresh Arguments and Judgment: The Trial Court must re-hear the arguments and decide the case afresh based on the new evidence.
Timeframe for Completion: The entire retrial process must be completed within four months from the date the Supreme Court’s order is received.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in POSCO case ensures that all crucial evidence, especially scientific reports, are thoroughly examined before deciding a case involving the death penalty. By ordering a retrial with proper legal representation and procedural fairness, the Court upheld the fundamental right to a fair trial and prevented a potential miscarriage of justice.

The three-judge bench of Justice raised serious concerns about POSCO case that how the trial was conducted. They remarked:

“The instant case involves capital punishment and thus, providing a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself is absolutely imperative and non-negotiable. The trial in the case at hand was concluded without providing appropriate opportunity of defending to the accused and within a period of less than two months from the date of registration of the case, which is reflective of undue haste.” Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court identified critical aspects that influenced its decision to grant bail:

Victim’s Testimony and Identification Process: During cross-examination, the victim disclosed that the police had shown her the accused’s photograph before the test identification parade. This revelation raised concerns about the integrity of the identification process, suggesting potential procedural irregularities.
DNA Evidence: The DNA report from the State Forensic Science Laboratory indicated no match between the accused’s semen and the samples found on the victim’s clothing. This lack of forensic corroboration weakened the prosecution’s case against the accused.

Explanation of the Supreme Court’s Remarks in POSCO case

“Capital punishment requires a fair opportunity for defense”
- Since the case involved the death penalty, the court emphasized that the accused must be given a proper chance to defend themselves.
“The trial was concluded in undue haste”
- The case was completed within two months, which the Court found too rushed for a fair trial.
“Denial of fair trial is non-negotiable”
- The Court made it clear that a fair trial is a fundamental right, even in the most serious cases.

Final Judgment & Implications of POSCO case

The Supreme Court cancelled the death sentence and ordered a fresh trial.
The case highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in POCSO cases, ensuring that both victims and accused get justice.
The judgment reinforced that no case should be rushed at the cost of a fair trial, even in heinous crimes.

Final Thoughts

The Supreme Court’s decision in this POSCO case protects the right to a fair trial while ensuring justice for victims. This case serves as an important reminder that legal procedures must be followed properly, even in cases involving serious crimes like sexual assault under the POCSO Act.