Madras High Court Sends Judicial Officer To Training For Convicting POCSO Accused Based On Victim's Statement U/S 164 CrPC

The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice R Poornima gave directions to the registry after noting that the judge, who was presiding over the Special Court for POCSO cases, had found a man guilty based on the victim's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC.

“We are of the opinion that the learned trial Judge who had convicted the appellant based on the statement recorded from the victim during investigation also needs to be sent for judicial training. We direct the Registry to send the learned trial Judge to State Judicial Academy to attend training programs to understand the fundamental principles of criminal law,” the court said.

The court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by a man who was convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment [under Section 366 of IPC] and life imprisonment [under Section 6 of the POCSO Act].

The case of the prosecution was that the victim went missing on May 1, 2022, when she had gone to buy paper and a police complaint was filed for the girl's missing. Later, on October 10, 2022, his daughter came back and informed them that she had fallen in love with the accused, who was living in the next lane and had gone with him to Tiruppur, where he tied a thali to her and they lived as husband and wife. The father took the girl to the police station, Dindigul Government Hospital and the court for recording her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. After investigation, charges were framed against the accused for offences under Section 366 of the IPC and Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

On trial, the victim did not support the case of the prosecution and denied having known the accused or having been sexually assaulted by him. The girl submitted that she had given the statement to the police upon instructions from her father.

The court noted that the trial court had convicted the accused based on the statement of the accused under Section 161, and Section 164 of the CrPC and the entry made by the Doctor in the accident register based on the statement of the victim.

The court also noted that the prosecution had produced a handwritten certificate titled “School Education Certificate” to prove the age of the victim which did not satisfy the requirements under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules and thus did not satisfy the requirement under Section 34 (1) of the POCSO Act.

Further, the court highlighted that the trial court had relied on statements under Section 161 and Section 164 which are not substantive evidence. The court highlighted that these statements could be used only to contradict the prosecution witness and not to convict or corroborate. The court noted that there was no legal evidence to find the accused guilty since the foundational facts had not been proven. The court remarked that the trial court had convicted the accused without understanding the fundamental principles of criminal law.

“From the above we find that there is absolutely no legal evidence to find the accused guilty. When the foundational facts had not been proved by the prosecution the trial Court erred in invoking presumption as under Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. The trial Court without understanding the fundamental principle of criminal law had convicted the appellant and thereby had committed a grave error and illegality,” the court said.

Noting that in similar circumstances, the court had previously sent a judicial officer to attend a training program, the court opined that a similar order could be passed in the present case.

Since there was no evidence against the accused, the court allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted him.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr S. Prabhu

Counsel for Respondent: Mr A. Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Palraj v. Inspector Of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 352

Case No: Crl. A (MD)No.1063 of 2024