St at e v. Suchit Narang anot her

Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deput y Advocat e General wit h Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Brief Holder . JUD GM EN T : ( p e r M r . G. N a r e n d a r , C.J.) Hear d learned counsel for t he appellant and learned Deput y Advocat e General for t he St at e.

2. The inst ant crim inal appeal has been filed by t he appellant seeking t o set - aside t he j udgm ent and order dat ed 30.01.2024, passed by learned Special Judge POCSO/ Addit ional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No.100 of 2019, ‘St at e vs. Suchit Narang & anot her ’, 1 t o set - aside t he sent ence dat ed 30.01.2024, and furt her t o acquit t he appellant fr om t he charges leveled against him .

3. The prosecut ion version of t he case is t hat upon t he ver bal inst r uct ions of t he Dist rict Magist rat e, t he com plainant - Kav it a Sharm a, Chairm an, Child Welfar e Com m it t ee, Dehradun, invest igat ed and subsequent ly filed a w rit t en com plaint wit h P.S. Raj pur, Dehradun wit h t he obj ect ive of regist ering a First I nform at ion Report against t he appellant - accused Suchit Narang, who was t he Music Teacher in t he school in which t he vict im used t o st udy. Child Welfar e Com m it t ee also recorded t he st at em ent s of t he st udent s of t he said school on 18.08.2018.

4. I t is alleged t hat t he appellant- Suchit Narang used t o t ouch t he privat e part s of t he m inor girls and used t o exploit t hem . Based on t he said com plaint , an FI R was regist ered in t he P.S. Raj pur, Dehradun as Case Crim e No.102 of 2018, under Sect ion 354- A I PC and Sect ion 10/ 9 of t he Prot ect ion of Childr en from Sexual Offences Act ,

2012. Aft er invest igat ion, t he charge- sheet was subm it t ed against t he appellant under Sect ions 376, 354-A I PC and 3/ 4, 9/ 10, 16/ 17/ 21 of POCSO Act , 2012. Pur suant t o filing of t he charge- sheet , Trial Court t ook cognizance of t he m at t er and provided copies of t he prosecut ion docum ent s t o t he accused. Subsequent ly, aft er hearing t he prosecut ion 2 and accused, t he Trial Court finding sufficient grounds t o fram e t he char ges, char ged t he appellant under Sect ions 376 and 354-A I PC and Sect ions 4 and 10 of POCSO Act ,

2012. Aft er t he conclusion of t rial, a ver dict of guilt y was handed down and sent ence of 20 years was awar ded.

5. Several wit nesses were exam ined, including t he vict im s as P.W.1 t o P.W.6, P.W.10 t o P.W.12 and P.W.18 , Dr. Priyanka as P.W.7, Kavit a Sharm a, form er Chairm an, C.W.C. as P.W.8, Const able 80 Mohan Singh as P.W.9, Am it Kum ar Sharm a as P.W.13, Kam alveer Singh Jaggi as P.W.14, Dhar m endra Singh as P.W.15, Shashikala as P.W.16, Asha as P.W.17, wit ness as P.W.19, S.I . Aart i Kalura as P.W.20 and S.I . Vinayt a Chauhan as P.W.21.

6. The following ex hibit s w ere m arked in t he cour se of t rial. The st at em ent s of t he v ict im s r ecor ded under Sect ion 164 of Cr.P.C. is Ex hibit Ka- 1 and Ka- 13 t o 15, Medical Report as Exhibit Ka- 2, Supplem ent ary report as Ka- 3, St at em ent of vict im s as Ka- 4 t o Ka- 9, Writ t en Com plaint as Ex hibit Ka- 10, Chik FI R as Exhibit Ka- 11, G.D. as Ex hibit Ka- 12, Phot ocopy of Regist er as Ex hibit Ka- 21, Applicat ion for m given for recording t he st at em ent s of t he vict im s under Sect ion 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit s P- 17 and P- 18, Applicat ion let t er given for r eview t he st at em ent s of t he vict im s under Sect ion 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex hibit s P- 19 t o P- 20, Map view as Ex hibit P- 21, Let t er sent t o SSP as Ex hibit P- 3 22, Fard r egarding t aking possession of digit al video recor der as Exhibit P- 23, SCRB/ DCRB let t er as Ex hibit P- 24, Cert ificat e as Exhibit P- 25, Fard t aking possession of hard disk of CCTV cam era’s DVR as Exhibit P- 26, Charge- sheet as Ex hibit P- 27.

7. Ther eaft er, t he accused was exam ined under t he provisions of Sect ion 313 and t he accused specifically denied all allegat ions and in fact , w ent on t o assert t hat all false st at em ent s have been m ade by t he prosecut ion.

8. The inst ant appeal is list ed for considerat ion of int erlocut ory applicat ion t o consider t he case of t he appellant for suspension of sent ence of 20 years im posed on t he appellant , and t o enlarge him on bail. I n t he course of hearing, and m ore part icularly, t he evidence of t he vict im , w ho is exam ined as P.W.6, it has com e t o light t hat t he accused/ appellant is suffering from 100% blindness, and t he undisput ed fact is t hat he was funct ioning as a m usic and com put er t eacher in school for t he blind.

9. On a furt her quer y, it has been fairly conceded by learned Deput y Advocat e General t hat no docum ent s have been fur nished t o t he accused in t he language k now n t o him , i.e. in Braille script , and t hat docum ent s t hat have been fur nished ar e in Devnagari script .

10. Despit e t he adm it t ed t hat t he accused/ 4 appellant is a blind person wit h absolut ely no vision and no abilit y t o read, under st and and inst r uct his counsel, w hich, in our consider ed opinion, is a deprivat ion of t he right of t he accused for a fair t rial. Depriving t he accused of t he m at erial docum ent s and a descript ion of m at erial obj ect s in t he language known t o t he accused, would in no uncert ain t erm s, com prom ise t he right of t he accused t o under st and t he char ges and t he m at erials on t he basis of w hich, t he char ges ar e leveled against him .

11. The failure t o provide docum ent s t o t he accused in a language in which t he accused could not r ead, would definit ely scut t le t he chances for t he accused t o inst ruct and assist his counsel in canvassing t he defence on his behalf. The failur e t o furnish t he docum ent s in t he language k now n t o t he accused w ould also seriously pr ej udice t he abilit y of t he accused t o respond at t he t im e of quest ioning by t he Court in exer cise of t he power s under Sect ion 313 of t he Code of Crim inal Procedur e. The failure and om ission t o furnish t he docum ent s in Braille script , w hich is adm it t edly t he language which t he accused is capable of r eading, in our consider ed opinion has vit iat ed and rendered t he t rial unfair on account of t he inabilit y of t he accused t o read, com pr ehend and inst ruct his counsel.

12. The above opinion is furt her but t ressed by t he provisions of Sect ion 12 of t he Right s of Persons wit h 5 Disabilit ies Act , 2016 ( for short “ t he 2016 Act ” ) . I n fact , t he nom enclat ure of Sect ion 12 of t he 2016 Act is as under: - “ A cce ss t o j u st i ce ” Sect ion 12( 4) ( a) , ( b) and ( c) r eads as under: - “ 12.( 4) The appropriat e Governm ent shall t aken st eps t o- t hat all t heir public docum ent s are ( a) ensure accessible form at s; ( b) ensure t hat t he filing depart m ent s, regist ry or any ot her office of records are supplied wit h necessary equipm ent t o enable filing st ories and referring t o t he docum ent s and evidence in accessible form at s; and facilit ies and ( c) m ake available all necessary equipm ent t est im onies, argum ent s or opinion given by persons wit h disabilit ies com m unicat ion.” recording of and m eans preferred language facilit at e t heir t o

13. The St at e, by denying t he docum ent s in an enabling for m at , t he Trial has seriously pr ej udiced t he right of t he accused for a fair Trial. That apart , even on m erit s, considerat ion and appr eciat ion of ev idence does not inspire confidence. Be t hat as it m ay, as w e are not ent ering upon t he m erit s for dislodging t he j udgm ent of convict ion, we do not wish t o furt her elaborat e on t he m erit s and w e lim it our findings t o t he lim it ed aspect of denial of fair t rial on account of failur e t o provide docum ent s t o a person wit h disabilit y in an enabled form at or language know n t o t he accused and t her eby, t he sam e has result ed in denial of access t o j ust ice.

14. I n t hat view, t he appeal is allowed. The j udgm ent of convict ion and sent ence is set - aside. The m at t er is r em it t ed back t o t he Trial Court for r e- t rial aft er 6 furnishing t he m at erial in com pliance wit h t he provisions of Sect ion 12 of t he 2016 Act . Pending t rial, we dir ect t he appellant t o be released on bail, if not requir ed in any ot her case, subj ect t o t he appellant - applicant execut ing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/ - and furnishing one sur et y for t he like sum t o t he sat isfact ion of t he Trial Court . Cr i m i n a l A p p e a l N o .6 5 o f 2 0 2 4

15. The inst ant appeal is pr eferr ed by t he co- accused, who is alleged t o have failed t o infor m t he com m ission of offence.

16. The j udgm ent of convict ion and sent ence im posed upon t he m ain accused having being set - aside by t his Court in Crim inal Appeal No.299 of 2024, t he inst ant appeal also requir es t o be allowed.

17. Accordingly, t he appeal is allow ed. The j udgm ent of convict ion is set - aside. The m at t er is rem it t ed back t o t he Trial Court for considerat ion in t erm s of t he j udgm ent passed in Crim inal Appeal No.299 of 2024. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G. N A REN DA R, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A LOK M A H RA , J. Dt : 18 t h June, 2025 NI SHANT NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00ec2b7462b452b 326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A055CFD1961690 560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR 7