Interest Of The Child Is Paramount And Not The Interest Of Perpetrator: Madras High Court Dismisses POCSO Convict’s Appeal, Upholds Joint Trial Conviction
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Division Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima dismissed an appeal by an accused convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and confirmed the Special Court’s judgment. The accused had challenged the joint trial conducted against two persons accused of sexually assaulting the same minor child at different times, contending that the combined proceedings caused prejudice. Rejecting the plea, the Bench held that the appellant failed to show any prejudice and that no failure of justice arose merely because the trial was joint. The court noted that in child-abuse cases, courts must apply the law to protect the child’s interests over those of offenders.
The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, arrayed as Accused No.2, by the Principal Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Theni, for offences under Sections 5(m) read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376-AB of the IPC. The prosecution case was that the minor victim girl, aged about 11 years and studying in 6th standard, was subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by multiple accused persons residing in the same village.
The complaint was lodged following information received by the Child Helpline Supervisor, who found that the victim was pregnant. FIR was registered, the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, and medical examination was conducted. Seventeen witnesses were examined and documentary evidence was marked. The trial court convicted the accused and imposed life imprisonment with fine. The appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the ground that the joint trial conducted with the co-accused caused prejudice, alleging improper framing of charges and identical questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The Bench examined whether the joint trial caused prejudice. The Court recorded that “separate trial is the Rule under Section 218 Cr.P.C; a joint trial may be permissible where the offences form part of the same transaction or the conditions in Sections 219-223 Cr.P.C., are satisfied, but even then it is a matter of judicial discretion.” It further stated that “the two paramount considerations for conducting joint trial are whether a joint trial would cause prejudice to the accused, and whether it would occasion delay or wastage of judicial time.”
Referring to precedent, Nasib Singh v. State, the Court observed that “a conviction or acquittal of the accused cannot be set aside on the mere ground that there was a possibility of a joint or a separate trial” and that interference is justified only where prejudice or miscarriage of justice is shown.
On facts, the Bench recorded that “though the accused did not commit the offence in the course of same transaction, they had committed similar offence against the same victim child.” It further observed that “it cannot be said that the accused had committed distinct offences as against the victim child.”
With respect to Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court stated that “though all the questions were put up against both the accused jointly, all the allegations and overt acts are one and the same.” It added that “it cannot be said that it would affect the rights of the accused in any manner.”
The Court also noted that “mere non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under Section 223 does not ipso facto invalidate the trial” and that proof of failure of justice is required. It recorded that “there is no explanation as to how separate trials could have made any difference to the outcome of the case.”
On the framing of charge, the Court observed that “mere discovery of an error, irregularity or omission in the framing of charge does not ipso facto render the decision of the Court as invalid.” It further stated that “what is necessary is the failure of justice as a result of such error or omission or irregularity.”
The Court remarked: “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.”
Ultimately, the Bench recorded that “the appellant failed to prove that the joint trial conducted by the trial Court has caused serious prejudice to him.”
The Court directed that “this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment, dated 09.12.2024 made in S.C.No.280 of 2023, on the file of the learned Principal Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Theni, is confirmed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. M. Karunanithi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Bhagavathiraj v. State Represented by The Inspector of Police
Case Number: Crl.A(MD)No.120 of 2025
Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima
