The High Court of Gujarat has clarified that the age of a victim at the time of an alleged offense, rather than their age at the commencement of trial, determines the applicability of procedural safeguards under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act . In a recent ruling, the Court held that the legislative intent behind the Act—specifically regarding the protection of minors—remains applicable to the trial process regardless of whether the victim has attained the age of majority in the intervening months or years before testimony is recorded.

This judgment serves as a vital precedent for lower courts, reinforcing that the statutory protections afforded to vulnerable witnesses are tethered to the circumstances at the time of the crime. The ruling effectively mandates that the Exclusive POCSO Court in Ahmedabad (Rural) must conduct in-camera proceedings for the victim in question, overturning a previous order that had denied this request on the basis of the prosecutrix 's current age.

The Procedural Dispute The legal challenge arose from a trial currently ongoing under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , and the POCSO Act. An FIR was registered on March 15, 2026 , alleging offenses under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , alongside several sections of the POCSO Act. At the time the FIR was filed, the victim was 17 years and 11 months old. As the case proceeded to trial, the defendant filed an application requesting that the victim’s deposition be recorded in-camera in accordance with the specific provisions governing POCSO cases.

The trial court, however, rejected this application, likely reasoning that because the victim had already turned 18, the protective framework of the POCSO Act regarding the recording of testimony was no longer strictly necessary or applicable. The defendant moved the High Court, arguing that the denial of in-camera proceedings created an unnecessary and potentially traumatic environment that conflicted with the spirit of the legislation designed to shield victims of sexual violence.

The State of Gujarat , appearing as the respondent, supported the position that the POCSO Court should have adhered to the procedures under the Act, emphasizing that the victim's age at the time of the incident is the triggering factor for the application of these specific legal protocols.

Judicial Reasoning and Statutory Application Justice Mool Chand Tyagi, presiding over the matter, underscored that the protections within the POCSO Act are not merely procedural formalities but are substantive safeguards meant to ensure that the process of testifying does not become a site of further victimization. The Court meticulously analyzed the timeline of the alleged offense and the subsequent trial commencement.

The Court’s reasoning hinged on the fact that the offense itself was registered under the umbrella of the POCSO Act, making the statutory framework binding for the duration of the trial. In its order, the Court explicitly stated, “Mere the fact that when the trial was commenced, the age of the victim girl was more than 18 years would not tantamount that the provisions of POCSO Act regarding recording of deposition would not apply.”

By setting aside the earlier order, the High Court affirmed that the procedural rigors and protections prescribed under Sections 33(2), 36, and 37 of the POCSO Act are non-negotiable for cases involving offenses against minors, even if the victim transitions into adulthood during the pendency of the legal proceedings . This ensures that the dignity of the victim is preserved and that the testimony is recorded in a controlled environment, which the High Court deemed essential for the effective administration of justice .

Protecting the Integrity of the Trial The ruling also addresses the dual objective of the justice system: ensuring that the victim is shielded from secondary victimization while simultaneously guaranteeing the accused a fair opportunity for cross-examination . The petitioner had sought in-camera proceedings to strike a balance, arguing that the court should adopt “ reasonable and proportionate protective measures ” that do not "mechanically curtail" the right to test the evidence.

By mandating in-camera proceedings , the Court has provided a roadmap for how the judiciary should navigate the transition of a victim from a minor to a major during a trial. The High Court has clarified that the legal status at the point of the offense acts as the anchor for procedural mandates.

The High Court directed the learned Exclusive POCSO Court in Ahmedabad (Rural) to proceed with the trial in accordance with these findings, specifically instructing that the deposition of the victim be recorded in-camera. This direction effectively settles the ambiguity that had led to the trial court's initial rejection, reinforcing the consistent application of POCSO protocols across the state.

This judgment is significant not only for the specific parties involved but as a broader guidance note for trial courts throughout Gujarat. It prevents inconsistent applications of the law where procedural protections might otherwise be waived or contested based on the chronological age of the victim during the trial phase. Moving forward, the lower courts are expected to prioritize the nature of the offense and the victim's status at the time of the crime as the primary indicators for invoking POCSO procedural safeguards , ensuring that the legal system remains responsive to the needs of the victims it was designed to protect. The petition stands disposed of, and the rule made absolute, signaling the commencement of the trial under the mandated protective guidelines.