INTRODUCTION:
In the recent issuance of order by the Allahabad High Court, it was regarding a POCSO act case. A trial court judge in protection of children from sexual offenses, case signed an acquittal order without properly checking it, leaving out a crucial note about the child victims’ ability to testify reliability. The act of missing out the information because of relying on the typist of the court led to a mishap in the case. The Allahabad High School, it criticized this, calling it unacceptable and stressing the need for extra care in the child abuses, this incident highlights serious issue and how sensitive cases are handled in lower courts.
BACKGROUND:
In the case of Arvind v. state of UP, where the accused faced POCSO charges for alleged sexual offenses against a minor. The trial judge in this case, he acquitted the accused but failed to include a mandatory certificate in the judgment, stating that he had checked if the child victim understood questions and could tell right or wrong. It is considered as a legal requirement in a POCSO case, where the child witnesses under Indian Evidence Act rules. When the prosecution appealed to Allahabad. In the High Court, the judges reviewed the records and found the omission. The document was signed without being cross-checked and it was stated that trial judge signed the documents without checking the document regarding the certificate confirming the child victim’s ability to understand questions and distinguish right from wrong. The trial judge claimed that he had questioned the child orally but blamed his court typist (reader) for not adding a certificate while typing from dictation, claiming it was an innocent error.
KEY POINTS:
- The division bench of Justices Salil Kumar Rai and Ajay Kumar, they rejected the trial judge’s explanation, stating it was unacceptable for him to sign without reviewing contents and delegate essential details to a typist without reconfirming and rechecking. They also stated that it can’t be taken as an innocent error, because it involves a serious sexual offense involving a child and an accused.
- The court stressed that POCSO cases demand more sensitivity and judges must ensure child friendly procedures, including proper competency certification like properly recording the victims as competency to ensure fair trials and protect minors.
- The High Court division bench in this case, they rejected the trial judge’s weak explanation, noting it showed a lack of responsibility and should be taken care of properly to escape liabilities and to prevent any sort of error from harming the case.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
Considering the essence of this issue, on 3 February 2026, the court in this case asked the trial judge to give a personal explanation. Based on the delays, on 23 February, they warned of summoning him through the District Judge. His final response was still unsatisfactory, but the court held off on punishment at this stage. They admitted the appeal against the acquittal and fixed the final hearing for the second week of July 2026. Advocate Deshraj Singh appeared for the appellant in this case.
CONCLUSION:
It was held in this ruling that the judge have the duty to double check the documents and to not completely rely on the typist or the reader of the court involving sensitive matters. And this case also emphasises the importance of each document to be properly presented in the case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: MEENAKSHI DANGI.
