The integrity of a child’s statement depends on the child actually understanding, and being understood in, the language of the proceeding. In Selvaraj v. State, Crl.A. No. 467 of 2026, decided on 24 September 2026, the Madras High Court suspended a POCSO convict’s sentence pending appeal because the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC had been recorded in Tamil with no translator present — although the family, migrant workers from Assam, required a Hindi translator when they testified at trial. The order is a study in how language and interpretation failures become appellate arguments.
Why language goes to the root
A Section 164 statement is often the spine of a POCSO prosecution: recorded early, before influence can operate, it anchors the child’s account. But the record must show the child comprehended the questions and that her answers were faithfully rendered. Where the child’s household language is Hindi or Assamese and the statement stands in Tamil with no interpreter noted, the document’s provenance is uncertain — was it the child speaking, or the recording process? That uncertainty is what the Madras High Court labelled a foundational discrepancy, serious enough to make the appeal substantial and the sentence suspendable.
The legal framework for interpreted testimony
Suspension of sentence: how the discretion runs in POCSO appeals
| Factor | Application in this case |
|---|---|
| Arguability of the appeal | The translation gap raised a substantial question on the reliability of the core evidence. |
| Nature of the offence | Grave — hence conditions rather than refusal: quarterly appearance and a strict no-contact direction toward the victim’s family. |
| Custody already undergone | Weighed with the likely time an appeal takes to mature in the High Court. |
| Risk factors | Managed through bond, sureties and reporting, in the absence of tampering history. |
For defence counsel, the case illustrates where to look in migrant-worker prosecutions: compare the language of every recorded statement against the family’s actual linguistic profile, check for interpreter endorsements, and contrast the pre-trial record with how testimony was actually taken at trial. For prosecutors, the prophylaxis is procedural hygiene at the first recording — note the language, note the interpreter, and have the fidelity of translation verifiable. Convictions are protected at the recording table, not in appellate argument.
A note for Delhi
Delhi’s POCSO courts serve one of India’s largest migrant populations, and statements pass daily through Hindi, Bengali, Bhojpuri and other languages. The same principles apply under the BNSS: interpretation must be real, recorded and consistent across stages. Where it is not, this order shows the consequence — the sentence yields to the appeal.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the conviction?
The trial court convicted the accused for offences against a four-year-old child of migrant tea-estate workers, under Sections 366A and 342 IPC and Sections 7, 8, 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act — sexual assault provisions aggravated by the victim’s age.
What exactly was the discrepancy?
The child’s pre-trial statement under Section 164 was recorded in Tamil, with no translator noted. At trial, the victim’s side could depose only through a Hindi translator. The High Court considered it a foundational question how a Tamil statement was obtained from a Hindi-speaking child without interpretation — an issue going to the statement’s reliability.
What is suspension of sentence pending appeal?
Under Section 430 of the BNSS (formerly Section 389 CrPC), an appellate court may suspend execution of the sentence and grant bail while the appeal is heard. In POCSO cases courts examine the strength of the appeal; here, the translation issue made the appeal genuinely arguable, justifying suspension on a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties, quarterly appearances and no contact with the victim’s family.
Does suspension mean the conviction is doubted?
It means the appeal raises a substantial question — no more. The conviction stands until the appeal is decided; conditions protect the victim’s family in the interim. If the appellate court ultimately finds the statement reliable despite the discrepancy, the sentence revives.