Joint Trial in POCSO Case Valid If Same Victim, No Prejudice to Accused: Madras High Court

A joint trial in a POCSO case involving multiple accused is legally permissible where the allegations relate to the same minor victim and no prejudice is caused to the accused, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has held, while upholding the life sentence imposed on a man convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl.

A division bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima dismissed the appeal filed by one Bhagavathiraj and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Principal Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Theni.

A case was registered in 2023 at the All Women Police Station, Theni. The prosecution case was that the minor victim, a Class VI student living with her mother in Valayapatti village, was sexually assaulted by three men over a period of time. During investigation, one of the accused died in a road accident. The remaining two were charged under Sections 5(m) read with 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376-AB of the IPC [corresponding to Section 65(2) of the BNS].

The matter came to light after the Child Helpline received information on May 20, 2023. On enquiry, it was found that the child had not menstruated for several months and was pregnant. She was produced before the Child Welfare Committee and later admitted to a home. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 183 of the BNSS), and school records established that she was 11 years old at the time of the offences. The trial court convicted both surviving accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 50,000 each.

Before the high court, the appellant primarily challenged the legality of the joint trial. He contended that the alleged assaults were committed on different dates and independently, and therefore did not form part of the “same transaction” under Section 223, CrPC (corresponding to Section 246, BNSS).

He argued that separate trials were mandatory under Section 218, CrPC (corresponding to Section 241 of the BNSS)and that the joint trial had caused serious prejudice. He also objected to the fact that both accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC (corresponding to Section 351 of the BNSS) using the same questionnaire.

The Bench examined the statutory scheme governing joinder of charges and joint trials and reiterated that while separate trials are the rule, Sections 219 to 223 CrPC carve out exceptions. Court observed that a conviction cannot be set aside merely because a joint trial was conducted. The accused must demonstrate actual prejudice or miscarriage of justice.

On the question whether the offences formed part of the “same transaction”, court held that the expression is not rigidly defined and must be assessed on the facts of each case.

Though the assaults were not committed together, the victim was the same minor child, the nature of the offences was similar and the acts occurred within a proximate period. Both accused had exploited the same vulnerable circumstances of the child, the bench noted.

Importantly, court emphasised that in cases involving child sexual abuse, the approach must be child-centric. The best interest of the child is paramount. Directing separate trials would have required the minor victim to depose more than once, exposing her to further trauma. Judicial procedure, court said, cannot be applied in a manner that compounds the suffering of a child survivor.

On the challenge to the Section 313, CrPC examination, the bench held that there was no illegality. The allegations and overt acts attributed to both accused were substantially similar. The appellant had also adopted the cross-examination conducted by the co-accused during trial. In the absence of demonstrated prejudice, the contention that identical questioning vitiated the trial was rejected.

Finding no procedural infirmity or miscarriage of justice, the high court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the life sentence imposed by the trial court.

Case Title: Bhagavathiraj vs. State

Judgment Date: February 10, 2026

Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima