GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *CRL.A. 258/2019* Maruthupandi Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police Dated: 30.04.2021 *Hon’ble Justice P. Velmurugan* dismissed the Criminal Appeal in the matter of *“POCSO”* while observing that *“compromise in sexual offences trivializes the trauma of the victim”* and further held the following:

*GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*

*CRL.A. 258/2019*
Maruthupandi Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Dated: 30.04.2021

*Hon’ble Justice P. Velmurugan* dismissed the Criminal Appeal in the matter of *“POCSO”* while observing that *“compromise in sexual offences trivializes the trauma of the victim”* and further held the following:

i) Although the Appellant was charged under the IPC and POCSO, since POCSO is a special Act, the Appellant would be sentenced under this Act and not the general provisions of IPC.
ii) The High Court being an Appellate Court, is a fact-finding Court and it therefore shall re-appreciate the entire evidence.
iii) Despite PW1 & 3 being interested parties, the same cannot be framed as a sole ground to discard the evidence and disallow the prosecution’s case.
iv) Any offence against a child, is an offence against the State. The Courts and State are defacto guardians of children. Once the complaint is filed and the State has taken cognizance of the offence, it is no longer a compoundable offence. Once the offence is committed under POCSO Act, the criminal is liable to be punished.
v) A further observation is made based on the guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat Vs. St. of Madhya Pradesh [Crl.A.No. 329 of 2021], High Courts and Trial Courts were to refrain from making observations or conditions that not only trivialized the crime committed against the victim, but should also refrain from encouraging compromise of any kind, especially in the form of marriage.