IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Joint trial is a matter of judicial discretion – Joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at outset of proceedings and for cogent reasons.
(2) Mere discovery of error, irregularity or omission in framing of charge does not ipso facto render decision of Court as invalid.

JUDGMENT

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.—This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.280 of 2023, dated 09.12.2024, on the file of the Principal Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Theni

2. The case of the prosecution is that the minor victim girl and her mother are living in the house of the grand-mother of the victim child. Both the accused are also living in the same village called Valayapatti. While the victim child was studying in 6th standard, the first accused had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim and he had paid a sum of Rs.20/- to the victim girl. It has been happened for the past one year. While being so, the second accused also called the victim to his house and had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. The third accused also committed the same offence as against the victim girl, however, the third accused died due to road accident. P.W.6, who is the Supervisor of Child Helpline, informed about the occurrence against the victim girl. Thereafter, P.W.6 and another examined the victim girl and came to understand that the victim girl was pregnant. Thereafter, P.W.6 lodged a complaint for taking appropriate action as against the accused. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered by the All Women Police Station, Theni in Cr.No.19 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 5(m) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376-AB of IPC. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.

3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.17 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the trial Court.

4. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found both the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and Section 376 of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act; they were sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each in default to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376- AB of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was a huge delay in lodging the complaint. It is was not explained by the prosecution. Therefore, a false case has been foisted as against the appellant. Totally there are two accused in this case. The appellant is arrayed as accused No.2. The Trial Court conducted joint trial without the request of the accused. Both had not committed the same offence. They committed the alleged occurrence on different dates, time and places. Therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have conducted joint trial. It causes great prejudice to the appellant. Because of the joint trial, both the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with the same questionnaire. Therefore, it causes prejudice to the appellant. If it is so, the entire trial is vitiated and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

6. He further submitted that there was a delay in forwarding the material objects and other documents to the trial Court. It is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, there was a material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which will cut the very root of the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove any of the charges as alleged against the appellant. In fact, the statement of the victim was received by the Court only on 23.06.2023 i.e., after one month from the date of registration of the FIR. It is fatal to the case of the prosecu