The Madras High Court observed that the trial court “committed a grave error without understanding the fundamental principle of criminal law” while convicting the appellant. The Court set aside the conviction and directed the trial judge to undergo judicial training.
The Madras High Court at the Madurai Bench criticized a trial judge for what it termed a “grave error and illegality” in convicting an individual under the POCSO Act based on inadmissible evidence.
The court mandated that the judicial officer undergo mandatory training to grasp the “fundamental principles of criminal law.”
A division bench consisting of Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira and R. Poornima expressed strong disapproval of the conduct of the Special POCSO Court in Dindigul, which led to the verdict.
Also Read : BREAKING| CJI Gavai Dismisses Plea Seeking Criminal Contempt Against AG R. Venkataramani
The High Court noted that the trial court had convicted the defendant by relying on statements made during the investigation under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), despite clear legal stipulations that such statements cannot serve as the basis for a conviction.
The bench stated,
“The trial court, without understanding the fundamental principle of criminal law, had convicted the appellant and thereby committed a grave error and illegality,”
The bench pointed out that the victim had turned hostile and explicitly denied any knowledge of the accused or being subjected to sexual assault.
Nevertheless, the trial court based its conviction on her prior statements made to the police, magistrate, and doctor, all of which the High Court emphasized were not considered substantive evidence.
Citing recent Supreme Court rulings, including Renuka Prasad v. State (2025 INSC 657) and Siva v. State (2022 4 MLJ (Crl) 113), the bench reiterated that statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC can only be utilized for contradiction or corroboration, not for securing a conviction.
The bench remarked,
“The trial court erred in invoking the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act when the foundational facts were not proved by the prosecution. There was absolutely no legal evidence to find the accused guilty,”
In a decisive action, the High Court not only overturned the conviction but also called for administrative measures to ensure judicial accountability.
The court indicated,
“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,”
Furthermore, it instructed the Registry to send the judicial officer to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy for training programs focused on the fundamental principles of criminal law.
The bench referenced a previous division bench ruling in Chinnathambi v. Inspector of Police (2016), where similar directives were issued against a Sessions Judge who had convicted an accused based on statements under Section 161 CrPC.
That earlier judgment had noted,
“It is rather unfortunate that a Sessions Judge, who is empowered to impose even the death penalty, is unaware of this fundamental principle of criminal law,”
After setting aside the conviction and ordering the appellant’s release, the High Court also directed that if the victim had received any compensation, the District Collector must recover it, given her denial of the incident in her testimony.
Case Title: Palraj vs Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District