Joint Trial Irregularity Must Occasion Prejudice Before Acquittal Is Sustained

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 18377 of 2024 in which the State challenged a High Court order acquitting two accused of rape and POCSO offences. The appeal raised questions on the sufficiency of prosecution evidence on age, pregnancy and abortion, defects in framing of charge, and whether the joint trial of the two accused in violation of Section 223 Cr.P.C. had occasioned prejudice warranting acquittal.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and restored the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence. It held that the High Court erred in quashing the conviction primarily on account of non-compliance with Section 223 Cr.P.C. without first finding that the joint trial had in fact caused prejudice or a failure of justice. The Court found the victim’s testimony to be consistent across statements, corroborated by medical records showing pregnancy and by school records indicating minority, and concluded the defects in charge framing and investigative lapses did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further warned that “procedure is not supposed to control justice,” noting that procedural lapses must be weighed for their real consequence on fairness of trial.

Background The dispute arose after the victim — appellant’s daughter — was found pregnant in July 2016 and disclosed repeated sexual assaults by the two respondents over a period of months following Holi. An FIR dated 02.07.2016 led to prosecution, and the Trial Court convicted both accused under Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment with fines; sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal the High Court acquitted the accused, citing several infirmities: alleged failure to prove date and time of incidents; variations in proof of the victim’s age; absence of proof of abortion and defects in the charge (which recorded the date as 02.07.2016); and that a joint trial under Section 223 Cr.P.C. was impermissible and had caused prejudice.

On special leave, the Supreme Court examined the record. It found the victim’s oral testimony consistent across police statement, Section 164 Cr.P.C. deposition and court evidence; corroborative medical reports recorded pregnancy of about 15–16 weeks on 01–02 July 2016 and discharge/abortion documentation; and a school transfer certificate and unrebutted family testimony indicated the victim was a minor (around 12–13 years). While the Court acknowledged imperfections — defective phrasing of the charge and absence of DNA testing — it held such defects did not automatically vitiate the trial under Section 464 Cr.P.C. unless a failure of justice was shown. Relying on established principles governing joint trials, the Court emphasised that appellate interference for misjoinder required proof that the misjoinder prejudiced the accused or caused judicial delay; the High Court had not made such a factual finding. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court’s acquittal, restored the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence, and directed the respondents to surrender within two weeks, failing which the Trial Court would take appropriate steps to secure custody.

Case Details: Case No.: SLP(Crl.) No. 18377/2024 (Criminal Appeal No. ___/2025 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 18377 of 2024) Case Title: Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment