Vulnerable Witnesses Must Be Protected From Unnecessary Re-Traumatisation In Sensitive Cases: Delhi High Court

Last Updated on September 24, 2024 by NewsDesk SLC

Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court, especially in cases related to the POCSO Act, the protection of vulnerable witnesses becomes a matter of utmost urgency. The court observes that recalling victims, as in the case of children, for further cross-examination is bound to revive the traumatizing experience, thus suffering emotionally significantly and further inflicting psychological damage. It becomes imperative to tread with caution when such an action is contemplated lest one indulges in such trauma unnecessarily.

while rejecting the petition. The case of the accused came up for cross-examination on July 7, 2022, when the victim was already 13 years old. She was cross-examined by counsel the same date.

The case was already filed before the lower court last October. The argument was that the cross-examination was not properly conducted by the legal aid counsel since he did not ask them about the alleged incident, neither does he ask them about the date and time of the alleged incident. sacrifice. The accused contended that the victim, aged 13 years, was examined and cross-examined by the legal aid lawyer on 7 July 2022. The appeal by the victim was filed in the following October.

The accused contended that the cross-examination held initially was very poor because no question relating to the alleged occurrence or its date and time was asked. The prosecution argued that the right of the plaintiff to cross-examination had been terminated on the very day it was restored. To this, the court dismissed the claim as it had been made with a delay of about 15 months from the date of the victim’s interrogation. The court found no justification or requirement to recall the witnesses so as to ensure fairness in the decision of the case. The court dismissed the request of the accused to subpoena witnesses, stating that a vague assertion that important aspects omitted in the opening examination need to be tackled would undermine the fairness and efficiency of the trial.

The motion was submitted almost 11 months after the order, and the court noted that changing counsel cannot fill in the gaps in the defense. That would allow such a consideration to set precedents to drag cases endlessly. Justice Mahajan held that such change of counsel and claim about a fair trial without adequate grounds is sufficient.

Title: SUDARSHAN v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.