Interest Of Child Paramount, Not Of Perpetrator: Madras High Court Affirms Joint Trial In POCSO Case

The Madras High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by an accused under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act noting that there was no failure of justice merely because there was a joint trial. The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima observed that when courts were dealing with matters of child abuse, they must apply the laws in the best interest of the child and not the interest of the perpetrators of the crime. In the present case, the court noted that the Special Court had rightly conducted joint trial against two accused who had committed the offence of sexual assault on a minor child, though separately. “Thus, where there is a commonality of purpose or design, where there is a continuity of action, then all those persons involved can be accused of the same or different offences "committed in the course of the same transaction". Further when the Courts deal with an issue of child abuse, it must apply the laws in protecting the best interest of child, since interest of the child is paramount and not the interest of perpetrator of the crime. The approach must be child-centric,” the court observed. As per the prosecution, the victim who was 11-year-old was living with her mother and grandmother. The accused were also living in the same village. While so, the first accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. The second accused also committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. Another third accused also committed the same offence on the child but he died pending investigation. When the victim did not menstruate for some time, her mother enquired and was informed about the instances of sexual assault. The supervisor of child helpline was informed, who, upon examination understood that the victim was pregnant. The Supervisor lodged a complaint. An FIR was registered, case was taken on file, trial commenced and ultimately the first and second accused were found guilty for offences under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of the IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment with fine. This conviction was challenged by the second accused through the present appeal. The primary ground for challenge was that the court conducted a joint trial in absence of any application by the accused. He argued that both the accused had not committed the same offence and there was no common intention. He further argued that the trial court questioned them under Section 313 of CrPC with the same questionnaire, which caused great prejudice. Thus, he argued that the entire trial was vitiated and the conviction and sentence could not be sustained. He thus sought to remand the matter for fresh trial. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that both the accused had committed similar kind of offence against the victim at different time and place. He argued that the victim was the same who suffered the same act from both the accused. He thus argued that there was no prejudice. The APP also pointed out that the accused had not objected to the joint trial at the time of the trial and had failed to establish any prejudice that may be caused to him. He further submitted that the victim child could not be repeatedly called to the court to depose against each and every accused. The court noted that there were no defects in the investigation and the trial court had rightly framed the charges against the accused persons. With respect to the allegation that the same questionnaire was used for questioning under Section 313 CrPC, the court noted that all the allegations and the overt acts were one and the same and both the accused had committed the crime one after the other around the same time. Thus, the court concluded that the trial court had rightly posted the same questions under Section 313 CrPC to both the accused and the same would not affect the rights of the accused in any manner. The court also noted that the appellant, who was the second accused, had adopted the entire cross-examination of the first accused during trial. The court added that when such adoption did not cause any prejudice, the appellant could not now say that the joint trial vitiated the entire trial. The court concluded that the accused were not denied of any opportunity and nothing prevented them from having a fair trial. The court found no wrong in the questioning of the accused by the trial court. Thus, finding no infirmity in the trial or the conviction, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial court. Counsel for Appellant: Mr. M. Karunanithi Counsel for Respondents: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 64 Case Title: Bhagavathiraj v. State Case No: Crl.A(MD)No.120 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Interest Of Child Paramount, Not Of Perpetrator: Madras High Court Affirms Joint Trial In POCSO Case

Upasana Sajeev

Tags