The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that there was no failure of justice merely because the trial for multiple accused had been conducted jointly, and emphasising that when dealing with offences involving child abuse the interest of the child must be treated as paramount, not the convenience or procedural preferences of the perpetrators. The bench, comprising Justices G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and R. Poornima, observed that in cases of child sexual assault a child-centric approach is essential and that procedural technicalities must not be allowed to hamper the effective administration of justice in protecting a minor victim’s welfare and dignity. The background of the matter was a POCSO case in which an 11-year-old girl was allegedly subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by more than one accused. According to the prosecution, the victim was living with her mother and grandmother when the first accused committed the assault, and subsequently the second accused also committed similar acts against the same victim, while a third accused named in the probe had died during the course of the investigation.
During the original trial the prosecution examined multiple witnesses, including the victim and her family members, resulting in conviction of the first and second accused on charges under the POCSO Act and related provisions of the Penal Code, with both being sentenced to life imprisonment and fine. The second accused challenged his conviction before the High Court, contending that the trial court had erred in conducting a joint trial in the absence of any application by the accused for joinder of trial and that the offences by the accused were distinct in time and place, and therefore he should have been tried separately. He also argued that common questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had prejudiced his right to a fair trial, and sought a remand of the case for fresh trial on that basis.
In response, the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court was justified in trying the accused together because they had committed similar offences of sexual assault against the same victim around the same time, and because a joint trial spared the child victim the trauma of being repeatedly examined in separate proceedings. It was further submitted that the appellant had not raised an objection to the joint trial at the trial stage and had failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice resulting from the trial court’s procedures.
The High Court noted that the question of whether separate trials were necessary depended upon the circumstances of the case, particularly where there was a continuity of action and a pattern of offending which affected the same child, and where a joint trial would prevent repeated trauma to the victim. The bench emphasised that in child abuse cases, courts must apply the law in a manner that best protects the interest of the child, as that interest is the paramount consideration rather than the procedural preferences of the accused. It was observed that the offences committed by the accused shared a commonality of purpose and design in the sense that both had sexually assaulted the same minor, and that the trial court’s decision to frame charges and conduct a joint trial did not in itself cause prejudice to the appellant.
With respect to the allegation concerning the use of the same set of questions under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to elicit responses from both accused, the High Court noted that the overt acts alleged against each were essentially identical in nature, and that inviting answers on the same lines did not in any way compromise the appellant’s opportunity to respond fairly. The Court also pointed out that the appellant had endorsed the adoption of the co-accused’s cross-examination, indicating that he himself did not perceive any prejudice during the trial.
Having reviewed the record, the High Court found no defect in the framing of charges, in the conduct of the joint trial, or in the questioning of the accused, and held that the trial had been conducted fairly without denial of any opportunity to the appellant. The bench concluded that the appellant had failed to demonstrate how the joint trial had resulted in any miscarriage of justice or violation of his rights, and that the trial court had appropriately balanced procedural considerations with the need to protect the child victim from undue distress.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s conviction and sentence, affirming that when the interests of a child are at stake in cases of sexual assault, procedural objections that do not demonstrate actual prejudice cannot override the fundamental requirement of safeguarding the child’s welfare. The judgment reinforces the principle that in POCSO cases the law must be interpreted and applied in a child-centric manner, and that protective and pragmatic measures such as joint trials may be justified where they serve to minimise trauma to the victim without compromising the fairness of the trial.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.