‘Why force a child to face offenders twice?’: Madras High Court upholds joint trial for POCSO accused

Justices G K Ilanthiraiyan and R Poornima noted that the survivor was sexually assaulted by three accused. (Image is enhanced using AI)

It was also highlighted by the bench that when the courts deal with an issue of “child abuse”, it must apply the laws to protect the best interest of the child and not perpaetrators of the crime since the interest of the child is paramount and the approach must be child-centric.

The high court, in its February 10 order, clarified that the accused was not denied any opportunity for a fair trial merely because the trial court conducted a joint trial.

‘Three accused, same survivor’

The Madras High Court observed the following while upholding the trial court’s joint trial and its outcome:

• There were three accused in this case. However, during the investigation, the third accused died, and the state filed a final report against the two accused only.
• Neither of the accused raised any objections to conduct joint trial at the beginning of such trial.
• There is no defective investigation in the case at hand, and the trial court had rightly framed the charges against both the accused.
• The survivor is the same in both incidents, but the two accused are not connected to each other.
• The accused person had committed the offence one after the other.

• Though the accused did not commit the offence in the course of the same transaction, the two accused had committed a similar offence against the same minor child.
• It cannot be said that the accused had committed distinct offences against the minor child.
• An order of conviction or acquittal cannot be set aside merely because a joint or separate trial was possible.
• The court’s interference in any such cases is justified only where a miscarriage of justice can be shown.
• A joint or separate trial can be conducted in a proceeding when there are convincing reasons.

‘A joint trial unknown to criminal trial’

• Representing the accused, advocate M Karunanithi argued that the trial court had conducted a joint trial without the request of the accused.
• Karunanithi further submitted that his client had not committed the same offence.
• The accused persons committed the alleged occurrence on different dates, time and places.
• The conduct of such a joint trial is unknown in criminal law.
• Both the accused cannot be charged for both offences because of the one act.
• Moreover, the accused persons have been convicted under two different provisions of law.
• It is not the same transaction, and neither of the accused has any acquaintance with the other.
• There was neither a common intention nor did they abet each other to commit the offence for them to be tried jointly.

• There were material contradictions and omissions in the evidence placed on the record by the prosecution witnesses, which cut the very root of their case.
• The prosecution failed to prove any of the charges against the accused.
• The statement of the minor was received by the court after one month from the date of registration of the FIR. This is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
• The testimony of the survivor revealed the name of one more accused.
• However, the prosecution neither implicated him in this offence nor lodged a complaint against him, which creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution’s case.

‘Serious, heinous offence’

• On the contrary, additional public prosecutor T Senthil Kumar argued that both the accused had committed a similar kind of offence against the same minor girl at different times and places.
• The survivor cannot be repeatedly called upon to depose against each and every accused.
• The minor child was exploited by all the accused, and the accused committed a very “serious and heinous” offence against her.
• The accused did not even object at the time of trial when the trial court proceeded against both the accused in the same trial.
• Since the prosecution witnesses are cogent and trustworthy against each of the accused, a joint trial is very much permitted.

‘A child without father’

The minor’s mother, a sweeper, was living with the grandmother of the child, as the father had left immediately after the child’s birth.

The survivor, studying in sixth standard, was allegedly sexually assaulted by three different accused living in the same village in 2022.

One of the accused died in a road accident, while the other two were jointly tried by the trial court, which awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 50,000 each, along with other sentences.