In a packed courtroom at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, a Division Bench on February 10, 2026, dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a man convicted for sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl.
The court upheld the life imprisonment awarded by the Special POCSO Court in Theni, ruling that the joint trial of two accused had not caused any legal prejudice.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
The appeal, filed by Bhagavathiraj (Accused No.2), challenged his conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Background of the Case
The case traces back to Crime No.19 of 2023 registered by the All Women Police Station, Theni.
According to the prosecution, the minor victim, who was studying in Class 6, was repeatedly subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by two men from her village. A third accused, who allegedly committed similar offences, died during the investigation.
The complaint surfaced after a Child Helpline supervisor received information that the child was pregnant. An inquiry followed, and the child was produced before the Child Welfare Committee. A formal complaint was then lodged, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376-AB of the IPC.
The Special Court for POCSO Cases in Theni convicted both surviving accused in December 2024 and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹50,000 each.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
Grounds of Appeal
Appearing for the appellant, counsel argued that the trial was fundamentally flawed.
He contended that:
- There was delay in lodging the complaint.
- The two accused were tried jointly despite committing offences at different times and places.
- Both were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code using the same set of questions.
- Separate charges were not framed for distinct offences.
The defence relied on Supreme Court precedents, arguing that separate trials are the rule and that a joint trial should not be conducted if it causes prejudice to the accused.
“The entire trial is vitiated,” the defence argued, insisting that the matter be remanded for a fresh, separate trial.
Prosecution’s Stand
The Additional Public Prosecutor countered that the victim was the same child in both instances and that the offences were similar in nature.
He told the court that a joint trial prevented the minor from being forced to repeatedly testify in separate proceedings. “The accused have not shown how they were prejudiced,” he submitted.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
The State maintained that the evidence was clear and trustworthy and that the trial court had followed due process.
Court’s Observations
Delivering the judgment, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, speaking for the Bench, examined the legal principles governing joint trials.
The court referred to Supreme Court rulings explaining that while separate trials are generally preferred, joint trials are permissible if they do not cause prejudice or miscarriage of justice.
The Bench observed:
“Separate trial is the rule, but a joint trial is permissible where conditions are satisfied and no prejudice is caused.”
It noted that both accused had exploited the same child and that the victim’s testimony formed the core of the prosecution case against each of them.
The court also addressed the argument regarding questioning under Section 313 CrPC. It held that although similar questions were put to both accused, the allegations and evidence were substantially similar. Therefore, no legal injury was shown.
The judges pointed out that the appellant had not objected to the joint trial at the beginning of proceedings and had even adopted the cross-examination conducted by the co-accused.
Importantly, the court emphasised a child-centric approach in sexual offence cases.
“When courts deal with child abuse, the interest of the child is paramount,” the Bench observed, underscoring that the legal process should not add to the trauma of the victim.
Evidence and Findings
The victim’s deposition, medical evidence, and school records confirming her age were found reliable.
The medical report showed that her hymen was not intact. The school certificate confirmed that she was only 11 years old at the time of the offence.
The court found no contradictions serious enough to shake the prosecution’s case.
It also rejected the claim of defective investigation, holding that there was no material suppression or unfairness.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Orders Probe Into ₹14 Lakh Sabarimala Staff Transfers During Mandala
The Decision
After analysing the arguments and the law on joint trials, the Division Bench concluded that the appellant had failed to prove any prejudice caused by the joint trial.
The court held that the conviction under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376-AB of the IPC was justified.
The criminal appeal was dismissed. The life imprisonment and fine imposed by the Special Court were confirmed.
Case Title: Bhagavathiraj vs State
Case No.: Crl.A (MD) No.120 of 2025
Decision Date: 10 February 2026
