The Allahabad High Court recently criticized a Special Judge for not properly checking the contents of a judgement acquitting an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) [Arvind v State of UP and 3 Others].

The High Court had earlier called for an explanation from the trial judge, after finding that the judgment did not reflect whether the trial court had satisfied itself regarding the capability of the child victim to give evidence and whether she understood the questions put to her.

"There is nothing in the judgment of the trial Court to show that any certificate to that effect was issued by the trial Court," the Court noted.

The trial court judge said he had, in fact, examined the victim regarding her ability to distinguish between right and wrong and to answer the questions honestly and correctly. However, it was also conceded that the same was not reflected in the judgment due to the judge's workload.

The judge's explanation was recorded as follows in the High Court order:

"The statement of the witnesses has been typed on his (trial judge's) dictation by the reader (typist) of the Court, but the reader without any willful conduct omits to record the certificate as required."

While dealing with an appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused in the POCSO Act case, the Division Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Ajay Kumar found the trial judge's explanation unsatisfactory.

"We are not able to appreciate that the trial Court signed the judgment without even looking into all the contents of the judgment and left it to the discretion of the reader/typist. We also take note of the fact that the case was under the POCSO Act and the trial Court was expected to be more sensitive on the issue," the Bench said.

While the Court took note of the lapse, it did not order any action at this stage.

"At this stage, we refrain from making any observation on the aforesaid, more than we have noted before," it said.

The Court had called for a personal explanation from the trial judge on February 3. However, after the trial judge failed to respond in time, the High Court on February 23 asked the District Judge at Sambhal's Chandausi to ensure compliance with the order. The Court also warned that it would summon the Special Judge if he failed to submit an explanation.

The judge, who conducted the trial in the case and delivered the judgment, then submitted the explanation, which the High Court found unsatisfactory.

The Court proceeded to admit the appeal and listed the matter for final hearing in the second week of July.

Advocate Deshraj Singh appeared for the appellant.

[Read Order]