The Allahabad High Court criticised a trial judge for permitting a typist to determine crucial parts of a verdict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. High Court said trial court was expected to be sensitive.
The Allahabad High Court reprimanded a Special Judge for failing to ensure that a judgment acquitting an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) properly recorded whether the child-victim was capable of giving evidence and understood the questions posed to her.
The High Court observed that the trial court’s judgment contained no certificate or other indication that the court had satisfied itself on the victim’s competency to testify.
Although the trial judge later stated that he had examined the victim about her ability to distinguish right from wrong and to answer questions truthfully, he acknowledged that this was not reflected in the written judgment, attributing the omission to his heavy workload.
The trial judge’s explanation was recorded in the High Court’s order as follows,
“The statement of the witnesses has been typed on his (trial judge’s) dictation by the reader (typist) of the Court, but the reader without any willful conduct omits to record the certificate as required.”
A Division Bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Ajay Kumar found this explanation unsatisfactory.
The Bench said it could not accept that the trial judge signed the judgment without reviewing its contents and effectively left the inclusion of essential material to the reader/typist.
The court emphasized that greater sensitivity was expected in cases under the POCSO Act.
Although the High Court noted the lapse, it did not order any disciplinary action at this stage, stating: “At this stage, we refrain from making any observation on the aforesaid, more than we have noted before.”
The High Court had initially directed the trial judge to provide a personal explanation on February 3. When the judge did not respond in time, the High Court on February 23 instructed the District Judge at Sambhal’s Chandausi to secure compliance and warned that the Special Judge would be summoned if he failed to explain.
The judge later submitted an explanation, which the High Court deemed unsatisfactory.
The court admitted the appeal and scheduled the matter for final hearing in the second week of July. Advocate Deshraj Singh represented the appellant.
ALSO READ: POCSO Act || Kolkata Court Sentences Man to Death for Raping 7-Month-Old Baby
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is a special law made to protect children below 18 years from sexual abuse. It provides clear definitions of different kinds of sexual offences and sets strict punishments for offenders. The law also ensures a child-friendly process during investigation and trial, including recording the child’s statement in a safe environment, using specially trained police officers, and completing the trial within a fixed time.
The Act covers offences like sexual assault, penetrative sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, harassment, pornography involving children, and using children for sexual purposes. It places responsibility on teachers, doctors, and other adults to report cases, and failure to report can lead to punishment. It also makes sure the child’s identity stays confidential.
Case Title: Arvind v State of UP and 3 Others