PANJIM: North Goa Additional Sessions Judge Sharmila Patil quashed and set aside the order of Mapusa Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), which had convicted social activist Adv Aires Rodrigues in connection with his alleged social media posts on the sex scandal involving the then Water Resources Minister Vinod Paliencar.
The then Mapusa JMFC Pooja Desai on January 5 last year had convicted Adv Rodrigues and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for outraging the modesty of a woman by linking her to an alleged sex scandal in November 2017.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Allowing the appeal filed by Adv Rodrigues, the Additional Sessions Judge Sharmila Patil in her 19-page judgment while holding that the JMFC’s order was perverse and illegal has ruled that the JMFC erred in rendering findings on the incriminating circumstances, which were not put to Adv Rodrigues while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
While holding that the Court cannot opt to pick and choose selection procedure in putting questions, Judge Patil has stated that each and every circumstance emerging from the record against the accused must be put to him.
Judge Patil in her judgement while pointing out 17 instances of incriminating instances which were not put to Adv Rodrigues, has also highlighted an unwarranted question put to Adv Rodrigues by the JMFC, while recording his statement under 313 of the CrPC.
Stating that the JMFC had created a confusing situation for herself by passing the judgement and relying on incriminating circumstances which were never put to Adv Rodrigues with no explanation sought from him thus not being in settled principles of recording statement under 313 of the CrPC, Judge Patil has remanded the matter back to the Mapusa JMFC with directions to again record the statement of Adv Rodrigues under Section 313 of CrPC and to decide the matter afresh after giving him an opportunity to lead defence evidence.
