POCSO Victim Or Their Parents Need Not Be Involved In Appeal Against Conviction, But Must Be Impleaded For Suspension Of Sentence: Madras HC

Justice K Murali Shankar clarified that the victims in POCSO cases should not be directly involved in the proceedings, and any notice that should be served to them must be through the address provided by the State Counsel.

“In conclusion, it is clarified that involving the victim or their parents is not necessary in criminal appeals challenging the convictions under the POCSO Act. However, their impleadment is essential in regular bail applications under Section 483 BNSS (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) and suspension of sentence application under Section 430 BNSS (Section 389 Cr.P.C.,) It is further clarified that the victim should not be directly involved or served notice in any proceedings. Instead, notice should be served to the victim's parents or complainant through the address provided by the State Counsel. To protect the victim's interest, the Courts may direct the District Legal Services Authority or State Legal Service Authority or the High Court Legal Services Committee to provide legal assistance through their panal Advocates,” the court said.

The court was dealing with three criminal appeals arising out of convictions and sentences imposed by special courts dealing with POCSO cases. In all three criminal appeals, the appellants had also filed applications for suspension of sentence under Section 430(2) of the BNSS.

When the cases were taken up, the court raised a query on whether the de facto complainant is a necessary party in the criminal appeals challenging the conviction under the POCSO Act and for suspension of sentence.

The appellant's side submitted that notice was not necessary as neither the POCSO Act nor the rules provided for the same. The Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that notice was necessary since the amended Section 439(1-A) of CrPC provided for notice before granting bail to a person accused of offences under Section 376(3) or 376-AB or Section 376-DA or 376-DB I.P.C.

The court noted that in Jagjeet Singh and Others Vs. Ashish Mishra and another, three judge bench of the Supreme Court had held that the victim has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision.

The appellant's however, argued that the judgment could not be made applicable in the present case as the court had not dealt with cases under the POCSO Act. Relying on the judgment in the case of Pooja Gurjar and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, it was argued that the unbridled participatory rights of the victim would not mean that the victim could substitute the State as the prosecutor agency. It was also argued that the Court is neither statutorily obligated to send legal notice to the victim girl nor direct the accused to implead the victim girl as the party to hear and decide the bail applications and appeal bail applications.

The court noted that generally, in criminal cases instituted by the police, the victim or the de facto complainant would not be made a party and impleading them as a party was uncommon. However, the court also noted that if the victim of the defacto complainant wishes, they could engage a counsel to assist the public prosecutor/assistant public prosecutor under Section 301(2) of CrPC. The court also noted that considering the principles of dignity, privacy, and modalities to ensure these values, the victim was not made a necessary party in the criminal appeals arising from convictions under the Act.

With respect to suspension of sentence, the court noted that it was essential to hear the victim's family regarding any potential harassment, threats, or coercion by the accused post-conviction. The court added that without hearing the victim or de facto complainant, the appellate court may remain uninformed about certain crucial aspects. The court, therefore, stressed that it was essential to hear the victim in both regular and appellate bail applications in offences under the POCSO Act.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamypandiyan for Mr. A. Karthick Kumar, Mr.D.Venkatesh

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. B. Thanga Aravind Government Advocate

Case Title: Venkateshwaran v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 339

Case No: Crl. M. P.(MD)Nos.7809, 11825 and 11926 of 2025