Interest of child paramount, not perpetrators in abuse cases: HC

Madurai: When courts deal with an issue of child abuse, they must apply the laws to protect the best interest of the child, since the interest of the child is paramount and not the interest of the perpetrator of the crime, Madras high court has observed.The case of the prosecution is that a 11-year-old minor victim girl lived with her mother and grandmother. In 2023, she was sexually assaulted by three people on different occasions. The incident came to light when the girl became pregnant. Based on a complaint, police registered a case against the accused for offences under the Pocso Act and Section 376 of the IPC.Since the third accused died during the pendency of investigation, police filed a final report against the first accused and second accused. In Dec 2024, the principal special court for Pocso Act cases in Theni convicted and sentenced both the accused to undergo life sentence. The second accused (appellant) preferred an appeal challenging the conviction and life imprisonment imposed on him.The counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court conducted a joint trial without the request of the accused. Both the accused committed the alleged occurrence on different dates, times and places. Therefore, the trial court ought not to have conducted a joint trial. Because of the joint trial, both the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the CrPC with the same questionnaire. Therefore, it caused prejudice to the appellant.A division bench of justice G K Ilanthiraiyan and justice R Poornima observed that, admittedly, the victim was the same in both the incidents, but both accused were not connected to each other. However, both the accused exploited the victim, using her circumstances to their advantage. The accused committed the offence one after the other.The judges observed that the joint trial would depend on the meaning of the expression "same transaction" as occurring in clause (d) of Section 223 of the CrPC."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'. The approach must be child-centric," the judges observed.Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused committed distinct offences against the victim child. There is no explanation as to how separate trials could have made any difference to the outcome of the case, except causing harassment to the victim by compelling her to face her offenders twice in the witness box to explain the same version. Neither of the accused raised any objections to conducting a joint trial at the beginning of such trial. The appellant failed to prove that the joint trial caused serious prejudice to him, the judges observed, and dismissed the appeal.