Madras High Court Prioritises Child Welfare Over Perpetrator’s Concerns in POCSO Trial

In a significant judgment reinforcing the child centric approach mandated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld the conviction of an accused in Bhagavathiraj v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Theni (Crl.A.(MD) No.120 of 2025), a case involving repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault on an 11 year old girl. The Court categorically held that in cases concerning sexual offences against children, the paramount consideration must be the welfare and best interests of the child, not the procedural convenience or technical objections raised by the perpetrator.

The appeal arose from Crl.A.(MD) No.120 of 2025, decided on 10 February 2026, by a Division Bench comprising Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima. The appellant, arrayed as Accused No.2, challenged the conviction primarily on the ground that the trial court had conducted a joint trial along with another accused, thereby allegedly causing prejudice.

Rejecting these contentions, the High Court reaffirmed the principle that procedural objections cannot overshadow the fundamental objective of POCSO legislation: safeguarding children from sexual abuse and ensuring justice in a manner that does not further traumatise the victim.

Factual Background

The case involved a minor girl aged 11 years, studying in the 6th standard, who was subjected to repeated sexual exploitation by multiple accused persons in her village. The prosecution’s case, as recorded by the trial court and examined in appeal, revealed:

• The victim was living with her mother.
• The accused exploited her vulnerability and poverty.
• Both Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on different occasions.
• A third accused, who had also allegedly committed similar acts, died during investigation.

An FIR was registered under Sections 5(m) read with 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376-AB of the IPC [Section 65(2) of BNS].

The trial court, after examining 17 prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence, convicted both accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with fines.

Grounds of Appeal

The principal challenge raised by the appellant revolved around:

1. Improper Joint Trial – It was argued that both accused committed offences at different times and places; hence, separate trials ought to have been conducted.
2. Violation of Sections 218 and 223 CrPC (Sections 241 and 246 BNSS) – The appellant contended that distinct offences required distinct charges and separate proceedings.
3. Prejudice in Section 313 Examination – The appellant argued that both accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) with identical questionnaires, allegedly resulting in serious prejudice.
4. Delay in Lodging FIR and Forwarding Materials – It was claimed that the delay weakened the prosecution’s case.

The defence relied on precedents of the Supreme Court, including Nasib Singh v. State and Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana, to argue that joint trials must not prejudice the accused.

Issues Before the High Court

1. Whether the joint trial caused prejudice to the appellant.
2. Whether identical questioning under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) vitiated the trial.
3. Whether offences committed at different times against the same victim could be treated as part of the “same transaction” for the purpose of joint trial.

Evidence Supporting the Prosecution Case

Testimony of the Victim (P.W.1)

The minor victim gave a clear, cogent, and consistent account of the abuse. Her deposition was corroborated by:

• Her statement under Section 164 CrPC (Section 183 BNSS) (Ex.P2).
• Medical evidence confirming sexual assault.
• School certificate proving her age as 11 years (Ex.P5).
• Testimony of the Child Helpline Supervisor (P.W.6).
• Testimony of the Child Welfare Committee member (P.W.7).

The High Court noted that nothing substantial was elicited in cross-examination to discredit the prosecution witnesses.

Joint Trial Under Section 223 CrPC (Section 246 BNSS)

Section 223 CrPC permits joint trials in certain circumstances, including where offences are committed in the course of the “same transaction.”

The Court reiterated settled principles from Supreme Court jurisprudence:

• A separate trial is the rule.
• Joint trial is an exception based on judicial discretion.
• The test is whether prejudice has been caused.
• Conviction cannot be set aside merely because a separate trial was possible.

Application to the Present Case

The High Court observed:

• The victim was the same in both instances.
• The nature of offences was identical.
• The acts occurred in close proximity in time.
• Separate trials would have required recalling the minor victim repeatedly.

The Court emphasised that recalling a child victim multiple times would amount to re-victimisation and would defeat the protective intent of POCSO.

Child-Centric Interpretation of Criminal Procedure

A pivotal part of the judgment lies in its articulation of a child-centric approach:

When courts deal with child abuse cases, they must apply the law in a manner that protects the best interests of the child. The interest of the child is paramount—not the convenience of the perpetrator.

The Court clarified that although the accused did not commit offences jointly in a strict sense, the commonality of victim, continuity of conduct, and similarity of acts justified a joint trial in the interest of justice.

Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) Examination: Was There Prejudice?

The appellant relied heavily on recent Supreme Court rulings regarding defective Section 313 examinations. However, the High Court distinguished those cases.

It held:

1. All incriminating circumstances were properly put to the accused.
2. The questionnaire, though similar, corresponded to identical allegations.
3. No material omission occurred.
4. The appellant failed to demonstrate specific prejudice.

Thus, the trial was not vitiated on this ground.

Paramountcy of Child Welfare

The Court made an important observation that resonates with constitutional values and the spirit of POCSO:

• Criminal law must not be interpreted in a mechanical manner.
• Technical objections cannot override the substantive objective of protecting children.
• The judicial approach must align with Article 21 and the best interest doctrine.

The judgment underscores that procedural fairness to the accused cannot be stretched to a point where it undermines the dignity and protection of the child victim.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s judgment reaffirms a fundamental principle of child protection jurisprudence that the welfare and dignity of the child must remain paramount in POCSO prosecutions. By upholding the joint trial and rejecting technical objections that failed to demonstrate real prejudice, the Court struck a careful balance between procedural fairness and substantive justice.

It recognised that criminal procedure cannot be applied in isolation from the lived realities of vulnerable victims, especially when repeated trials or technical fragmentation would risk retraumatising a minor survivor. The ruling reinforces that the justice system must be sensitive, pragmatic, and child-centric, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected but never at the cost of the child’s best interests.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams