The Delhi High Court has emphasised that child victims in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) should not be repeatedly summoned to court and that trial courts must ensure that their testimony is recorded in a timely and structured manner to avoid re-traumatisation.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while deciding a petition filed by minor victims challenging the issuance of bailable warrants against one of them during trial proceedings and seeking directions to strengthen safeguards for child victims participating in criminal trials. The Court noted that the warrants had already been set aside earlier, and the present proceedings primarily concerned broader issues relating to the treatment of vulnerable witnesses during trial.

The case arose from an FIR registered in August 2022 after three minor girls were reported missing. Upon being traced, the girls alleged that they had been sexually assaulted and criminally threatened by multiple accused persons over two days. Based on their statements, offences under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were added.

During the trial, the victims were summoned multiple times before their testimonies could be completed. It was pointed out before the Court that one of the victims had been summoned on nine occasions, while the other two were summoned four and six times respectively for recording their evidence. The petitioners contended that such repeated appearances caused significant distress and were inconsistent with the protective framework envisaged under the POCSO Act.

The High Court noted that Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act specifically mandates that a child should not be called repeatedly to testify. Referring to the statutory framework and judicial precedents, the Court observed that the objective of the law is to ensure that the criminal process does not itself become a source of further trauma for the child. The Court stressed that once a child witness is summoned for recording evidence, the Special Court should endeavour to ensure that examination-in-chief and cross-examination are conducted without unnecessary adjournments.

The Court also examined the existing legal framework governing vulnerable witnesses, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 18 SCC 24 and the Delhi High Court’s Guidelines for Recording Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses, 2024. These mechanisms recognise that victims of sexual offences and children require special procedural protection and that their testimony may be recorded through technological means or protective arrangements where necessary.

In this regard, the Court noted that video conferencing and other testimonial aids may be used to record the evidence of vulnerable witnesses, particularly where physical presence in court could cause fear, intimidation, or psychological distress. The Court emphasised that such mechanisms are intended to create a safe environment for witnesses while preserving the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Another issue addressed by the Court concerned the presence of victims during bail hearings in cases involving sexual offences. The Court observed that victims were being required to appear repeatedly during bail proceedings even when their views had already been recorded. Referring to earlier directions issued by a coordinate bench, the Court held that while victims have the right to be heard in bail proceedings, their repeated physical or virtual presence should not ordinarily be insisted upon once their objections have been placed on record.

The High Court clarified that existing statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and guidelines already provide sufficient safeguards for vulnerable witnesses, and therefore no additional guidelines were necessary. However, the Court reiterated that trial courts must adopt a balanced and compassionate approach to ensure that the trial process does not become a source of further distress for victims while maintaining fairness to the accused.

The Court summarised the governing legal principles regarding vulnerable witnesses in criminal proceedings as follows:

• Vulnerable witnesses: The expression “vulnerable witness” in criminal proceedings includes victims of sexual offences and child victims under the POCSO Act, who require a sensitive and protective approach during investigation and trial.
• Child-friendly procedures: The statutory framework of the POCSO Act mandates adoption of child-friendly procedures to ensure that child victims are not subjected to repeated or unnecessary court appearances and that the trial process does not lead to re-victimisation or further trauma.
• Use of technology: Courts are empowered to adopt appropriate procedural mechanisms, including recording evidence through video conferencing or other suitable technological modes, to minimise exposure of vulnerable witnesses to the accused and reduce psychological stress during proceedings.
• Presence during bail hearings: While victims have a right to be heard during bail proceedings, once their objections to the grant of bail have been recorded, courts should ordinarily avoid insisting on their repeated physical or virtual presence on every date of hearing.
• Compliance with safeguards: Trial courts must follow the judicial precedents and practice directions governing the protection of vulnerable witnesses in their true spirit to ensure that the criminal process itself does not become a source of distress to such witnesses.

Appearances: 

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nitin Saluja, Ms Nimisha Menon, Ms Pranya Madan and Ms Ankita Talukdar, Advs.

For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State along with SI Sonia. Ms. Prachi Dubey, Amicus Curiae