Madras HC Sets Aside Man’s 20-Year POCSO Sentence: Guilty Plea Without A Charge Did Not Bar Appeal; Retrial Ordered

The appellant was prosecuted for allegedly marrying a fourteen-year-old girl on 10 January 2024 and having sexual relations with her; she later gave birth to a child.

The final report invoked Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCM Act) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The Special Court’s record stated that the appellant had admitted the accusation and pleaded guilty, but contained no formal charge, and the purported plea was unsigned.

The Special Court convicted him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 10 of the PCM Act.

On appeal, the High Court called for the trial record and examined the validity of the charge and plea, the evidentiary basis for the convictions, and whether the appeal was barred as one from a conviction on a guilty plea.

Sections 251 and 252 of the BNSS (corresponding to Sections 228 and 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) require a charge to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, who must then be called upon to plead; a guilty plea must relate to a specific charge and be properly recorded.

Section 416 of the BNSS restricts an appeal from a conviction on a guilty plea only where the conviction rests on a legally valid plea.

Under Article 21 of the Constitution, an accused is entitled to a fair trial and adequate notice of the accusation.

For a conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the prosecution must establish the survivor’s age as a foundational fact; the presumption under Section 29 arises only after foundational facts are established.

Sections 9 and 10 of the PCM Act create distinct offences with distinct ingredients, and an accused cannot be convicted under Section 10 without notice of that charge.

The contemporaneous record did not support the trial judge’s later explanation that charges had been framed: the B Diary recorded only general questioning, while neither the plea nor the judgment established that a specific charge had been read over and explained.

The purported plea was also unauthenticated; accordingly, it was not a valid guilty plea and did not bar the appeal under Section 416.

Independently, no witness or document was produced to establish the survivor’s age or other foundational facts necessary for the POCSO conviction, so the Section 29 presumption could not supply the missing proof.

The PCM conviction was also defective because the appellant was convicted under Section 10, although the final report charged him under Section 9, and the alleged conduct was that he married the survivor, not that he performed or conducted the marriage.

It set aside the convictions and sentences and remitted the matter to the Special Court to frame appropriate charges, record the appellant’s plea in accordance with law, conduct a trial and decide the case on its merits.

The appellant was to remain on bail and cooperate with the proceedings; the Court expressed no view on the merits of the prosecution case.