Taking note of the fact that a trial court in Pudukkottai district failed to ensure that the identity of a child was not disclosed during trial, which is contrary to the mandate of the POCSO Act, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed that the trial courts must be cautious in future and adhere to the provisions of the statute.
A Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and N. Sathish Kumar observed that Section 33 (7) of the POCSO Act makes it mandatory for the special court not to disclose the identity of the child during the trial.
The trial court had not maintained the same in the judgment. While recording the evidence, the child’s name was typed on the deposition form, without adhering to the mandatory provisions, the judges said. The court said that the trial courts must be cautious.
The court was hearing an appeal preferred by a 70-year-old man against the order of Mahila Court, Pudukkottai district. In 2019, the Mahila Court sentenced the man to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting his sister’s granddaughter in 2018.
The trial court had sentenced the man for life till his natural life with a fine of ₹1,000. The judges observed that it is relevant to note that the occurrence took place in the year 2018, prior to the amendment of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which came into effect in 2019.
The punishment prior to the amendment to Section 6 of the POCSO Act, should be for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but it may extend to imprisonment for life and also fine. Therefore, the action of the trial court convicting the accused for life imprisonment till his natural life is not according to law, the judges said.
The trial court ought to have imposed the punishment as per law that stood prior to the amendment. Taking note of the overall circumstances and the fact that the accused is already 70 years old, the judges said that they were of the view that if the accused is convicted for the period of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, the same will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence alone is modified, the judges said.
Confirming the conviction passed by the trial court, the judges modified the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court.
Taking note of the fact that a trial court in Pudukkottai district failed to ensure that the identity of a child was not disclosed during trial, which is contrary to the mandate of the POCSO Act, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed that the trial courts must be cautious in future and adhere to the provisions of the statute.A Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and N. Sathish Kumar observed that Section 33 (7) of the POCSO Act makes it mandatory for the special court not to disclose the identity of the child during the trial. The trial court had not maintained the same in the judgment. While recording the evidence, the child’s name was typed on the deposition form, without adhering to the mandatory provisions, the judges said. The court said that the trial courts must be cautious. The court was hearing an appeal preferred by a 70-year-old man against the order of Mahila Court, Pudukkottai district. In 2019, the Mahila Court sentenced the man to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting his sister’s granddaughter in 2018.The trial court had sentenced the man for life till his natural life with a fine of ₹1,000. The judges observed that it is relevant to note that the occurrence took place in the year 2018, prior to the amendment of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which came into effect in 2019. The punishment prior to the amendment to Section 6 of the POCSO Act, should be for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but it may extend to imprisonment for life and also fine. Therefore, the action of the trial court convicting the accused for life imprisonment till his natural life is not according to law, the judges said.The trial court ought to have imposed the punishment as per law that stood prior to the amendment. Taking note of the overall circumstances and the fact that the accused is already 70 years old, the judges said that they were of the view that if the accused is convicted for the period of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, the same will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence alone is modified, the judges said.Confirming the conviction passed by the trial court, the judges modified the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court.