Same Child Survivor in Two Separate Incidents: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction Of Accused In POCSO Case In Joint Trial
Shockingly, as per the factual matrix, originally there were three perpetrators, however one died in a road accident
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has upheld the conviction and life sentence of an accused in a case involving aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, dismissing his appeal against the judgment of a joint trial by Special POCSO Court, as it did not cause any prejudice.
In the matter, there was a the third accused also who committed the same offence as against the victim girl, however, the third accused died due to road accident.
The Court noted that the accused had committed the offence one after the other (other accused) and though the accused did not commit the offence in the course of same transaction, they had committed similar offence against the same victim child. The bench, thus, was of the opinion that keeping the best interest of the child, joint trial caused no failure of justice where the minor survivor was common to both accused and charges were clearly framed.
On joint trial, a bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima said that the same would depend on the meaning of the expression “same transaction” in Section 223 (d) CrPC, it observed, “Whether a transaction can be regarded as the same would necessarily depend upon the particular facts of each case. Though the Legislature has left the said expression undefined, the same can be inferred by applying to cases where there is proximity of time or place or unity of purpose and design or continuity of action in respect of a series of acts. 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”.
“Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had committed distinct offences as against the victim child. All the cross-examination by the first accused were duly adopted by the second accused namely the appellant herein. When the adoption of the entire cross-examination of the prosecution witness by the first accused did not cause any prejudice, the appellant cannot now say that the joint trial vitiates the entire trial and that it caused serious prejudice to him”, the bench further noted in the judgment.
Advocate M.Karunanithi appeared for the appellant and T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.
As per the prosecution case, the minor survivor, then studying in the 6th standard, was subjected to sexual assault on different occasions by different accused persons from the same village.
The offences came to light after intervention by a Child Helpline official, following which it was discovered that the child was pregnant. An FIR was registered under Sections 5(m) read with 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376-AB IPC.
Thereafter, after considering the relevant material and evidences, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with fines.
The appellant (Accused No.2 before the trial court) challenged the conviction mainly on procedural grounds, arguing that: the complaint was delayed; a joint trial was improper since the alleged acts occurred on different dates and places; the common questionnaire under Section 313 CrPC caused prejudice; there were defects in framing of charges.
However, the Division Bench rejected the contentions, observing that the minor survivor was the same in respect of both incidents and that the charges clearly specified the overt acts attributed to each accused.
The Court held that the accused were conscious of the allegations after filing of the final report and that there was no confusion regarding their individual roles.
The bench further noted that Section 313 CrPC examination reflected the evidence on record and did not mislead the accused and no actual prejudice or failure of justice was demonstrated. Mere procedural irregularities, the Court emphasised, cannot vitiate a conviction unless it is shown that they deprived the accused of a fair trial.
Therefore, on finding no infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the life sentence.
Cause Title: Bhagavathiraj v. State represented by, The Inspector of Police Crl.A(MD)No.120 of 2025
Appearances:
Appellant: M.Karunanithi, Advocate.
Respondent: T. Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor, Advocate.