Court Denies Petition to Recall Child Victim for Cross-Examination, Emphasizing Anti-Secondary Victimisation Under POCSO Act
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, dismissed a petition seeking to recall a child victim for cross-examination in a sexual assault case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The court underscored the imperative of safeguarding child victims from secondary victimisation and trauma during judicial proceedings.
The case involved Ramesh, the petitioner, who sought to recall the child victim for further cross-examination after the trial had already commenced. The child had initially provided testimony about the alleged sexual assault, wherein she described escaping the accused's grasp. The petitioner's counsel argued that due to previous counsel's absence, the right to cross-examine was compromised, prompting the need for recalling the victim.
Justice Chakravarthy, however, emphasized that subjecting child victims repeatedly to the trauma of testifying infringes upon their right to life and mental well-being. The judgment cited Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, which mandates that Special Courts ensure children are not repeatedly called to testify, thus preventing secondary victimisation. The court highlighted the importance of maintaining a victim-centric approach, especially in cases involving minors, aligning with the "best interest of the child" standard articulated by the Supreme Court.
The court acknowledged the procedural rights of the accused but stressed that these must be balanced against the psychological impact on the child. The ruling pointed out that the petitioner still had the opportunity to cross-examine other witnesses and present his defense without necessitating the child's reappearance in court.
Justice Chakravarthy's decision reflects a broader judicial commitment to uphold the principles of child protection embedded in the POCSO Act, ensuring that legal processes do not exacerbate the trauma experienced by young victims. This judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the judiciary's role in prioritizing the welfare of child victims over procedural technicalities.
Bottom line:-
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Secondary victimisation of child victims is impermissible - Courts must prioritize the best interest of child victims and ensure they are not repeatedly subjected to relive the trauma during trials.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 33(5)
Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc id # 2944632
