New Delhi: The Supreme Court has emphasised that a juvenile victim of sexual assault should not be called to testify before a trial court on multiple occasions.
A panel led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia ruled that a minor who has experienced a terrible sexual assault should not be summoned to testify repeatedly about the same incident.
The court was hearing a petition challenging the orders of the High Court of Orissa and the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in Nayagarh, which refused to recall a young victim for re-examination as a witness.
The accused allegedly kidnapped the minor girl, married her in a temple, and forced her to engage in sexual activities. Later, the victim was rescued by her parents with the assistance of the police.
The defendants were charged in 2020 under sections of the Indian Penal Code, the POCSO Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
During the trial, the special court rejected the accused’s attempt to recall the victim for re-examination as a witness. The trial court relied on Section 33 (5) of the POCSO Act, which states that a child will not be called to testify.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling, stating that the POCSO Act is special legislation designed to protect children from sexual offences, safeguard their interests, and ensure the child’s well-being at all stages of the prosecution of offences under the Act. A cursory reading of Section 33 (5) of the Act reveals that the special court must guarantee that a child is not called to testify before the court on several occasions.
It went on to say that while Section 33 (5) does not prohibit recalling the victim for re-examination as a witness, each case must be considered in light of its unique facts and circumstances.
The Supreme Court noted that the victim girl was around 15 years old at the time of the incident, and the defence counsel had previously been given the opportunity to cross-examine the minor twice.
The top court dismissed the accused’s special leave motion, saying, “The defence counsel was given ample opportunities to cross-examine the victim. When the victim has previously been examined and cross-examined twice, accepting an application for recall of the victim, particularly in trials under the POCSO Act, would undermine the statute’s fundamental purpose.”
The court further stated that a plea for the recall of a witness must be bona fide and genuine and should not be granted automatically.
For more updates Subscribe to Media Eye News
–IANS
