Allahabad High Court rebukes POCSO judge for omitting survivor’s statement details: ‘Left to discretion of typist’

The court added that we also take note of the fact that the case was under the POCSO Act and the trial court was expected to be more sensitive on the issue.

POCSO acquittal

• The criminal plea originates from an incident registered in Sambhal district.
• The case involves serious allegations related to the sexual exploitation of a minor, leading to a trial under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the POCSO Act.
• On December 22, 2025, the special judge delivered a judgment that resulted in the acquittal of the accused.
• The matter moved to the high court after a plea was filed under Section 413 (no appeal to lie unless otherwise provided) of the BNSS, challenging the acquittal order.

‘Explanation unsatisfactory’

• The court noticed that there was nothing in the judgment of the trial court to show that it had satisfied itself regarding the capacity of the victim to understand things/events and could distinguish between right and wrong, to honestly and correctly answer the questions put to her.
• There is nothing in the judgment of the trial court to show that any certificate to that effect was issued by the trial court.
• In the circumstances, an explanation was called from the concerned judge who conducted the trial in the case and delivered the judgment.
• The additional district judge/special judge (POCSO Act), Sambhal, has stated that the trial court had examined the victim regarding her ability to distinguish between right and wrong and to answer the questions honestly and correctly.
• But due to excess work, the said fact could not be referred to in the judgment of the trial court.
• It has been stated in the explanation that the statement of the witnesses has been typed on his dictation by the reader of the court, but the reader, without any wilful conduct, omitted to record the certificate as required. The explanation does not satisfy us.