Madras HC Orders Judicial Training For POCSO Court Judge Over Illegal Conviction

Last Updated:October 15, 2025, 18:54 IST

The HC criticised the trial court for invoking the presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act without establishing basic facts

The court also held that the prosecution failed to establish the girl’s age beyond a reasonable doubt. File pic

The Madras High Court’s Madurai bench recently acquitted a man convicted under the POCSO Act, finding that the trial court had based its decision on inadmissible evidence and misunderstood fundamental tenets of criminal law.

A division bench of Justices AD Jagadish Chandira and R Poornima allowed the appeal filed by Palraj, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Dindigul Special POCSO Court in January 2024 for allegedly abducting and sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl.

The prosecution claimed that the girl, a Class 10 student, went missing from her village on May 1, 2022, and returned in October the same year. Upon return, she allegedly confessed to having eloped with the accused to Tiruppur, where he tied a thali (wedding ritual) and lived with her as husband and wife. Based on this, the police registered a case under the POCSO Act and Section 366 of the IPC.

However, during the trial, the girl (PW2) turned hostile, denied any relationship with the accused, and claimed she had been staying with her aunt in Madurai during the period she was reported missing. She categorically denied being abducted or sexually assaulted.

Despite this, the Special Court convicted the accused, relying on her earlier statements to the police (under Section 161 CrPC), her statement before the magistrate (under Section 164 CrPC), and the doctor’s accident register entry naming the accused.

The High Court found this approach legally untenable. “Statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not substantive evidence and cannot be the basis of conviction," the bench observed, citing multiple Supreme Court precedents, including Renuka Prasad v State (2025 INSC 657) and Siva v State (2022 4 MLJ (Crl) 113).

The court also held that the prosecution failed to establish the girl’s age beyond a reasonable doubt. The school certificate produced (Exhibit P6) did not meet the statutory requirements under Section 34(1) of the POCSO Act and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. “The age of the victim has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt," the bench concluded.

Criticising the trial court for invoking the presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act without establishing basic facts, the High Court termed the judgment “a grave error and illegality". It drew parallels to an earlier decision (Chinnathambi v Inspector of Police, 2016), where a trial judge was directed to undergo judicial training for similar mistakes.

Following the same reasoning, the bench directed the Registry to send the trial judge for training at the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy “to understand the fundamental principles of criminal law".

Acquitting the appellant of all charges, the court ordered his immediate release and cancellation of any bail bonds. It also ordered that since the victim had denied the incident and turned hostile, she was not entitled to any compensation. If any compensation had already been paid, the government was directed to recover it.

Salil Tiwari

Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr...Read More

Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr...

Read More

News india Madras HC Orders Judicial Training For POCSO Court Judge Over Illegal Conviction

Read More