Karnataka HC Rejects State Bid To Add Accused’s Mother To POCSO Case, Citing No Incriminating Trial Evidence

The complainant initially named Manjula, mother of respondent No. 1, alongside respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in a complaint alleging trespass, abuse and extortion.

In a further statement, however, she said Manjula was not present at the scene and had committed no offence; police consequently omitted Manjula from the charge sheet.

After the prosecution examined 24 witnesses, it applied under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add Manjula as an accused.

The Special Judge rejected the application, and the State challenged that order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers a court to proceed against a person who is not already an accused where evidence during the inquiry or trial indicates that the person appears to have committed an offence.

The required satisfaction is higher than the prima facie satisfaction needed at the stage of framing charges: the evidence must support a strong possibility that the proposed accused would be convicted if tried.

The Court relied on *Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab*, (2014) 3 SCC 92, for this threshold.

Although Manjula was named in the initial complaint, the complainant later stated that she was absent and had committed no offence, and the police dropped her from the charge sheet after investigation.

The High Court found that the evidence of the 24 prosecution witnesses disclosed no incriminating material or specific allegations against her.

Applying the heightened threshold under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court held that the record did not support a strong possibility of conviction and that the Special Judge had properly refused to add her as an accused.

The State’s petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.