Court Emphasizes Sensitivity and Diligence in Handling POCSO Act Cases, Orders Further Proceedings
In a recent judgment delivered on February 26, 2026, the Allahabad High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the procedural lapses observed in a trial court's judgment pertaining to a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case, Arvind v. State of U.P., involved an appeal against the acquittal order passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) in Sambhal at Chandausi.
The appellate bench, comprising Justices Salil Kumar Rai and Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, highlighted the trial court's failure to include a crucial certificate regarding the victim's capacity to comprehend and distinguish between right and wrong. The absence of this certificate raised concerns about the trial court's adherence to mandatory procedural requirements in cases under the POCSO Act.
The High Court criticized the explanation provided by the trial judge, who attributed the omission to an overwhelming workload. The trial judge stated that while the victim had been examined for her ability to understand the proceedings, this crucial detail was inadvertently omitted from the judgment due to a clerical oversight by the court's reader. The High Court found this explanation unsatisfactory and emphasized the importance of sensitivity and thoroughness in handling POCSO cases.
In its order, the High Court underscored the judicial responsibility to ensure all procedural safeguards are meticulously observed, especially in sensitive cases involving minors. The court expressed its inability to comprehend how the trial court could sign off on a judgment without verifying its completeness and left the responsibility to the discretion of the court's typist or reader.
Consequently, the High Court admitted the appeal for hearing and issued notices to the respondents. It directed the summoning of the trial court records and ordered the preparation of the paper book within three months. The case has been scheduled for final hearing in the second week of July 2026.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the critical importance of judicial diligence and the need for heightened sensitivity in cases under the POCSO Act, emphasizing that procedural lapses can significantly impact the delivery of justice.
Bottom Line:
POCSO Act - Trial Court's failure to include certificate regarding victim's capacity to understand and distinguish between right and wrong in its judgment - Court expressed dissatisfaction with explanation provided by the trial judge, emphasizing the need for sensitivity in cases under POCSO Act.
Statutory provision(s): Section 137(2), Section 65(2), Section 62 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Section 5M/18 POCSO Act
Arvind v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2866875
