Interest of child paramount, not the interest of perpetrator: HC

When courts deal with the issue of child abuse, they must apply laws in protecting the best interest of the child, since the interest of the child is paramount and not the interest of perpetrator of the crime. The approach must be child-centric, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has said.

The court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by a man against the judgment passed by the Principal Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Theni. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and two other accused had sexually assaulted a girl studying Class VI in the district. The third accused died. The first and the second accused were awarded life sentence.

The appellant, the second accused, said the trial court had conducted a joint trial without the request of the accused. Both had not committed the same offence. They committed the alleged crime on different dates and places. The trial court ought not to have conducted a joint trial. It caused prejudice, he said.

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that both the accused had committed the same offence against the same girl on different dates and places. There was absolutely no prejudice caused to the accused by conducting a joint trial.

A Division Bench of Justices G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and R. Poornima said though there were three accused, during investigation the third accused died. The final report was filed against the two accused. On receipt of the chargesheet, the trial court framed charges against the two.

The trial court conducted a joint trial against them on its own without anybody’s request. Though that was the case, neither of the accused had raised objections at the beginning of the trial. The appellant had failed to prove that the joint trial conducted by the trial court had caused serious prejudice to him, the court said.

The court said there was 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 for explaining the same version. When the appellant adopted the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses carried out by the first accused there was absolutely no prejudice caused to the appellant due to the joint trial, the court said and dismissed the appeal.