CHENNAI: Many people in society fail to understand the mental trauma children endure after being subjected to sexual harassment. While stringent punishments are prescribed and measures are in place to prevent offences against children, the implementation of the law should not itself become another source of trauma for the child, the Madras High Court said on Monday.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observation while refusing to allow the recall of a minor survivor in a sexual assault case for cross-examination by the accused before the Special Court for Pocso cases in Villupuram.
“The child cannot be repeatedly called to relive the ordeal. As soon as possible, the child has to be healed,” the judge said.
The case relates to the alleged sexual assault of a girl while she was grazing cattle near her house. Based on a complaint lodged by her parents, the All Women Police registered a case, which is now under trial before the Special Court.
The accused had sought permission to recall the child for cross-examination. However, the trial court dismissed the plea on May 5, 2026, noting that the victim had already appeared before the court to record her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the defence had not cross-examined her then.
Challenging the order, the accused moved the High Court, contending that his counsel was absent when the statement was recorded and that he had since engaged a new lawyer.
Rejecting the plea, Justice Chakravarthy said, “The child cannot be made to relive the said incident over and again. It is not about granting an opportunity to the accused alone. It is about the child’s right to life.”
The judge further observed that when a child witness, particularly one as young as 10, is examined, parties cannot assume that they can seek her recall for cross-examination on another day. Such an approach defeats the very objective of the Pocso Act, which is to safeguard children.
Referring to Section 33(5) of the Pocso Act, the judge noted that it casts a duty on the special court to ensure that a child is not repeatedly called to testify.
“The approach has to be victim-centric” and in the child’s best interests, the court said, adding that secondary victimisation in sexual abuse cases amounts to an infringement of the child’s right to life.