New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a man convicted under the POCSO Act who sought to recall an 11-year-old victim for cross-examination, calling such attempts “disturbing” and underscoring the need to prevent re-traumatization of child abuse survivors.
Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria delivered strong observations about the impropriety of allowing procedural tactics to override substantive findings in cases involving sexual violence against children.
The court addressed a Criminal Appeal arising from SLP (CRL.) Diary No. 34304 of 2025 filed by Arjun Sonar, who challenged his conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The court noted, “The appellant stands convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence of aggravated penetrating sexual assault on a minor girl aged about 11 years.”
The appellant, who was the maternal uncle of the victim, was originally convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO, East Sessions Division, Tezu in POCSO Case No. 02 (LDV)/2019. His conviction was later upheld by the Gauhati High Court at Itanagar in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 6 of 2022.
The appellant’s main contention was that he was denied effective legal assistance as his defence advocate did not cross-examine the prosecutrix. The court observed, “Based on this premise, the appellant sought a fresh opportunity to test the testimony of the child victim and prayed for recall of the witness.”
The court expressed serious concerns about such attempts, stating, “The fact that the defence counsel chose not to cross-examine the prosecutrix cannot by itself vitiate the proceedings, especially when the accused was present and made no protest application either to cross-examine the prosecutrix or immediately on the next date of hearing seeking recall of the witness.”
Emphasizing the strength of the prosecution’s case, the bench noted, “The prosecutrix, then a minor of 11 years, made a detailed and coherent statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) narrating the incident without any exaggeration or inconsistency. Her version is corroborated by contemporaneous medical evidence dated 24.11.2018 which confirms signs of recent forcible sexual intercourse.”
In particularly strong language, the Supreme Court stated, “Courts must be vigilant not to allow procedural submissions to evolve into tactics for harassment. A request to recall a child victim after conclusion of trial and concurrent findings of guilt raises serious concern.”
The court found that allowing such technical pleas would undermine public confidence in the justice system. It further observed, “The legal process cannot become a means to perpetuate injustice under the guise of procedural lacunas. In matters involving sexual violence against children, the paramount consideration is not the convenience of the accused but the integrity of the victim’s testimony.”
In a scathing criticism of attempts to re-examine child victims, the bench remarked, “To grant relief in a case of this nature after the guilt has been proved and affirmed would not merely undermine the majesty of the law; it would amount to a betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child in this country.”
However, the court noted with concern that no compensation had been awarded to the victim by the lower courts. The Supreme Court directed, “We direct that a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- (Ten lakhs and fifty thousand only) be paid to the victim as compensation by the State of Arunachal Pradesh.”
To protect the victim’s future interests, the court ordered that the compensation amount be kept in a Fixed Deposit for five years, with the victim entitled to withdraw quarterly interest. The process will be monitored by the Member Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.
Concluding, the court reaffirmed its commitment to comprehensive justice, stating, “This Court reiterates that justice must not be limited to conviction; it must, where the law so permits, include restitution. In awarding the aforesaid compensation, we reaffirm the constitutional commitment to protect the rights and dignity of child survivors.”
Case Title: Arjun Sonar vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh
