A child victim of sexual abuse should not be made to suffer at the hands of the accused during trial, the Madras High Court said and directed a trial court to remand a rape accused if he adopts any dilatory tactics to drag the case.
Justice P.N. Prakash also made it clear that boycott of courts by advocates shall be no reason for the accused to refrain from cross examining the witnesses, as held by the Supreme Court.
The judge passed the order while dismissing a plea moved by S. Sankara Varman, who was accused of attempting to rape a 14-year-old girl in 2013 seeking to allow him to recall the victim girl before the trial court for a cross-examination.
According to the prosecution, charges were framed against the accused under the provisions of IPC and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012. On February 5, 2014 the victim and other prosecution side witnesses were examined.
Thereafter, the accused moved an application before the Mahila Court, Chennai, to recall the victim and her parents. The court allowed the petition in part, but refused to allow recalling the victim, prompting the accused to approach the High Court.
Two opportunities
When the plea came up for hearing, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court had given two opportunities to the accused to cross-examine the victim, but the accused had not availed them.
Therefore, he cannot claim that his right to fair trial had been extinguished by the trial court now.
Denying the submission, counsel for the petitioner argued that the two opportunities provided were not utilised since the accused was absent during the hearing, and that the POCSO Act mandates the presence of accused during the cross-examination of the victim.
‘Specious argument’
Noting that the contentions of the petitioner were specious, Justice Prakash said, “The interpretation placed by counsel for the petitioner on the POCSO Act is indeed weird.
The Act mandates that a child should not be exposed to the accused when it is deposing and at the same time, it protects the right of the accused to remain in a place from where he can hear the statement of the child witness.
It does not give a carte blanche to the accused to absent when the child witness is present and later, claim that there is violation of Act.”
If the interpretation canvassed by counsel was accepted, it would lead to ludicrous results and every accused would be absent when the child witness came for giving evidence and take shelter under the Act, the judge added.
