2025:UHC:5113-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA 18TH JUNE, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2024 Suchit Narang …...Appellant. Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Respondent. Counsel for the Appellant : Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Mr. Shashwat Sidhant, Mr. Dhruv Chandra and Ms. Ishita Dhaila, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Brief Holder. With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2024 Mrs. Anusuya Sharma …...Appellant. Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Respondent. Counsel for the Appellant : Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Brief Holder. JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking to set-aside the judgment and order dated 30.01.2024, passed by learned Special Judge POCSO/ Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No.100 of 2019, ‘State vs. Suchit Narang & another’, 1 2025:UHC:5113-DB and to set-aside the sentence dated 30.01.2024, and further to acquit the appellant from the charges leveled against him. 3. The prosecution version of the case is that upon the verbal instructions of the District Magistrate, the complainant- Kavita Sharma, Chairman, Child Welfare Committee, Dehradun, investigated and subsequently filed a written complaint with P.S. Rajpur, Dehradun with the objective of registering a First Information Report against the appellant- accused Suchit Narang, who was the Music Teacher in the school in which the victim used to study. Child Welfare Committee also recorded the statements of the students of the said school on 18.08.2018. 4. It is alleged that the appellant- Suchit Narang used to touch the private parts of the minor girls and used to exploit them. Based on the said complaint, an FIR was registered in the P.S. Rajpur, Dehradun as Case Crime No.102 of 2018, under Section 354-A IPC and Section 10/9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Sections 376, 354-A IPC and 3/4, 9/10, 16/17/21 of POCSO Act, 2012. Pursuant to filing of the charge-sheet, Trial Court took cognizance of the matter and provided copies of the prosecution documents to the accused. Subsequently, after hearing the prosecution 2 2025:UHC:5113-DB and accused, the Trial Court finding sufficient grounds to frame the charges, charged the appellant under Sections 376 and 354-A IPC and Sections 4 and 10 of POCSO Act, 2012. After the conclusion of trial, a verdict of guilty was handed down and sentence of 20 years was awarded. 5. Several witnesses were examined, including the victims as P.W.1 to P.W.6, P.W.10 to P.W.12 and P.W.18 , Dr. Priyanka as P.W.7, Kavita Sharma, former Chairman, C.W.C. as P.W.8, Constable 80 Mohan Singh as P.W.9, Amit Kumar Sharma as P.W.13, Kamalveer Singh Jaggi as P.W.14, Dharmendra Singh as P.W.15, Shashikala as P.W.16, Asha as P.W.17, witness as P.W.19, S.I. Aarti Kalura as P.W.20 and S.I. Vinayta Chauhan as P.W.21. 6. The following exhibits were marked in the course of trial. The statements of the victims recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is Exhibit Ka-1 and Ka-13 to 15, Medical Report as Exhibit Ka-2, Supplementary report as Ka-3, Statement of victims as Ka-4 to Ka-9, Written Complaint as Exhibit Ka-10, Chik FIR as Exhibit Ka-11, G.D. as Exhibit Ka-12, Photocopy of Register as Exhibit Ka-21, Application form given for recording the statements of the victims under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibits P-17 and P-18, Application letter given for review the statements of the victims under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibits P-19 to P-20, Map view as Exhibit P-21, Letter sent to SSP as Exhibit P- 3 2025:UHC:5113-DB 22, Fard regarding taking possession of digital video recorder as Exhibit P-23, SCRB/ DCRB letter as Exhibit P- 24, Certificate as Exhibit P-25, Fard taking possession of hard disk of CCTV camera’s DVR as Exhibit P-26, Charge- sheet as Exhibit P-27. 7. Thereafter, the accused was examined under the provisions of Section 313 and the accused specifically denied all allegations and in fact, went on to assert that all false statements have been made by the prosecution. 8. The instant appeal is listed for consideration of interlocutory application to consider the case of the appellant for suspension of sentence of 20 years imposed on the appellant, and to enlarge him on bail. In the course of hearing, and more particularly, the evidence of the victim, who is examined as P.W.6, it has come to light that the accused/ appellant is suffering from 100% blindness, and the undisputed fact is that he was functioning as a music and computer teacher in school for the blind. 9. On a further query, it has been fairly conceded by learned Deputy Advocate General that no documents have been furnished to the accused in the language known to him, i.e. in Braille script, and that documents that have been furnished are in Devnagari script. 10. Despite the admitted fact that the accused/ 4 2025:UHC:5113-DB appellant is a blind person with absolutely no vision and no ability to read, understand and instruct his counsel, which, in our considered opinion, is a deprivation of the right of the accused for a fair trial. Depriving the accused of the material documents and a description of material objects in the language known to the accused, would in no uncertain terms, compromise the right of the accused to understand the charges and the materials on the basis of which, the charges are leveled against him. 11. The failure to provide documents to the accused in a language in which the accused could not read, would definitely scuttle the chances for the accused to instruct and assist his counsel in canvassing the defence on his behalf. The failure to furnish the documents in the language known to the accused would also seriously prejudice the ability of the accused to respond at the time of questioning by the Court in exercise of the powers under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The failure and omission to furnish the documents in Braille script, which is admittedly the language which the accused is capable of reading, in our considered opinion has vitiated and rendered the trial unfair on account of the inability of the accused to read, comprehend and instruct his counsel. 12. The above opinion is further buttressed by the provisions of Section 12 of the Rights of Persons with 5 2025:UHC:5113-DB Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short “the 2016 Act”). In fact, the nomenclature of Section 12 of the 2016 Act is as under:- “Access to justice” Section 12(4)(a), (b) and (c) reads as under:- “12.(4) The appropriate Government shall taken steps to- (a) ensure that all their public documents are in accessible formats; (b) ensure that the filing departments, registry or any other office of records are supplied with necessary equipment to enable filing stories and referring to the documents and evidence in accessible formats; and (c) make available all necessary facilities and equipment to facilitate recording of testimonies, arguments or opinion given by persons with disabilities in their preferred language and means of communication.” 13. The State, by denying the documents in an enabling format, the Trial has seriously prejudiced the right of the accused for a fair Trial. That apart, even on merits, consideration and appreciation of evidence does not inspire confidence. Be that as it may, as we are not entering upon the merits for dislodging the judgment of conviction, we do not wish to further elaborate on the merits and we limit our findings to the limited aspect of denial of fair trial on account of failure to provide documents to a person with disability in an enabled format or language known to the accused and thereby, the same has resulted in denial of access to justice. 14. In that view, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for re-trial after 6 2025:UHC:5113-DB furnishing the material in compliance with the provisions of Section 12 of the 2016 Act. Pending trial, we direct the appellant to be released on bail, if not required in any other case, subject to the appellant- applicant executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2024 15. The instant appeal is preferred by the co- accused, who is alleged to have failed to inform the commission of offence. 16. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the main accused having being set-aside by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.299 of 2024, the instant appeal also requires to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for consideration in terms of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.299 of 2024. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 18th June, 2025 NISHANT 7 NISHANT KUMAR Digitally signed by 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 Date: 2025.06.25 18:08:28 +05'30'