Allahabad High Court Seeks Trial Judge's Explanation For Failing To Discuss Victim's Injury Report In POCSO Acquittal Judgment

The Allahabad High Court earlier this week took strong exception to a trial court judge's failure to mention and discuss the injuries sustained by the minor victim in the judgment that ultimately acquitted the accused in a POCSO Act case.

Taking serious note of this lapse, the Court has called for an explanation from the Presiding Officer over the failure to consider the medico-legal report pertaining to the victim.

"We are pained to observe that Trial Judge has not mentioned in the impugned judgment, the injuries found on the body of the victim, whereas Circular Letter No. 13/VIb-47 dated: 3rd March, 2002 & Circular Letter No. 13/VIb-47 dated 3rd March, 1982 of High Court clearly directs the Judicial Officers to invariably reproduce in their judgments, the injuries from the injury reports of the injured persons," a bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Ajay Kumar-II observed in its order.

The Court was essentially hearing a government appeal of the trial court's April 2025 order acquitting the accused, Kalimullah Ansari. After condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the High Court perused the trial court's findings.

The division bench noted that while the victim was medically examined and the defence had even accepted the genuineness of her medico-legal report, the trial court had made absolutely no mention of the injuries found on the victim in its judgment.

The court added that there was no discussion at all about the medical report, including who prepared it and when.

The Court also found it "most strange" that the trial Court failed in its duty to ensure that the doctor was summoned as a court witness to explain the injuries found on the body of the victim at the time of medico-legal examination.

Hence, the Court called for an explanation from the presiding officer regarding the failure to mention the injuries found on the body of the victim, which were required to be reproduced in the judgment.

The Court added that the same was necessary in view of the fact that the judgment showed that the medico-legal report had not been discussed at all, which was a relevant fact and had helped the accused in being acquitted of the charge.

Thus, summoning the trial Court's records at the earliest, the bench posted the matter for April 15.