POCSO Court Judges have to be specially trained, sensitized: Madras High Court finds error in application of POCSO Act provisions by trial court

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that Judges posted to sit in special courts dealing with cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), must necessarily be given special training and sensitisation on how to deal with such cases (Venkatachalam v. The Inspector of Police)..Justice P Velmurugan was prompted to make the observation after he noted that a trial court judge had failed to appreciate the legal consequences that would follow when a child subjected to sexual assault was bellow the age of 12 years old. .Madras High Court calls for training Investigating Officers, Public Prosecutors, Special Judges dealing with POCSO Act cases [Read Judgment]. Pertinently, when a child below 12 years of age is subjected to sexual assault, it is viewed to be the more grievous offence of aggravated sexual assault (Section 9 (m) of the POCSO Act), which is punishable under Section 10 of the Act. On the other hand, Sections 7 (sexual assault) would apply where the child victim is 12 years of age or older, which is punishable under Section 8 of the Act..In the case before the High Court, the trial court had invoked Sections 7 and 8 for the sexual assault of a 10 year old, instead of invoking Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, since the victim was below 12 years old. .Observing that such a lapse on the trial court's side is not a one-off event, the High Court urged for training to be imparted to Special Court judges who deal with POCSO Act cases.."In many cases, this Court observed that the Special Judges who deal with cases under POCSO Act, not properly understood the scope and object of the POCSO Act. Before posting any Sessions Judge to the Special Court which deals with the cases under POCSO Act, have to necessarily sensitise and impart training to them through Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy. The Registrar General and Director of State Judicial Academy have to necessarily take steps for the same after getting necessary approval from My Lord The Honourable Chief Justice as Patron-in-Chief and Board of Governors of the State Judicial Academy", Justice Velmurugan said.The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by a man accused of sexually assaulting and intimidating a 10-year old child who was his neighbour back in 2014. The first incident took place on January 26, 2014 after the child returned from school, when the appellant is stated to spotted the child playing in from of her house, taken her to his house and sexually harassed her. .The next day, the appellant again attempted to call the child home with intent to commit sexual assault. However, the child refused following which he threatened her against disclosing the offence to anyone else. The following day, he is stated to have followed the child. Her mother saw the child in distress and questioned what was wrong. After the child narrated what had happened, a complaint was lodged with the police on January 29, 2014..In January 2021, a trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code (punishment for criminal intimidation). In his challenge to this trial court order, the appellant contended that there were unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, that there was enmity between him and the victim's father, that the child was not subjected to medical examination or that her statements were otherwise corraborated. .However, both the trial court and the High Court rejected these defences as not proved. Rather, the High Court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the victim-girl's testimony. Inter alia, the Court noted that the lack of medical examination would not be fatal to the prosecution's case since there was no penetrative sexual assault. .The Court further observed that corraboration of the victim's testiomony cannot always be expected in cases of this nature, adding that it is sufficient to prove the prosecution's case when the testimony given by the victim is found cogent and trustworthy. ."... the lapses committed on the part of the prosecution will not be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the victim girl. The victim girl was examined before the Court as a witness and she has clearly narrated the said incident ... In cases of this nature, no corroboration is necessary, because prudent man would not commit these type of offence in the presence of adult members and the presence of independent eye witnesses are mostly improbable ... this Court finds that the evidence of the victim girl is cogent and convincing. In cases of this nature, no corroborative evidence is necessary, if the evidence of the victim girl is trust worthy", stated the judgment..As such, the Court rejected the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction. His sentence was, however, modified to run consecutively instead of concurrently, which the High Court observed would meet the end of justice. .Advocate G Karuppasamy Pandian appeared for the appellant whereas government advocate (criminal side) TP Savitha appeared for the State. .[Read Judgment]