Arjun Sonar v. State of Arunachal Pradesh - POCSO Act - Recalling Child Victim

POCSO Act - 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, the finality of lawful findings, and the need to prevent secondary victimization. Once the trial has concluded and the testimony has been recorded, in accordance with law, any attempt to recall the victim for re-examination, must be treated with extreme caution. In the absence of compelling legal necessity, it cannot be allowed. Such attempts must be discouraged, wherever necessary it should be nipped at the bud especially when they threaten to retraumatize the victim.(Para 9) - 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 for recall of the witness - (Para 6) Courts have a duty to ensure that survivors of child abuse are not re-traumatized by the very justice system they turn for protection. (Para 10)

POCSO Act - SC directed that a sum of Rs.10,50,000 be paid to the victim as compensation by the State of Arunachal Pradesh and observed - 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, and to ensure that the justice delivered is substantive, compassionate and complete. (Para 12-13)

Quotes -Courts must be vigilant not to allow procedural submissions to evolve into tactics for harassment. The legal process cannot become a means to perpetuate injustice under the guise of a procedural lacunas . (Para 7,9)

Constitution of India - Article 136 - POCSO Cases - In serious offence under the POCSO Act, particularly those involving familial betrayal of trust, relief cannot be granted as a matter of routine when two courts have concurrently found guilt and the findings are not shown to be perverse interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is neither warranted nor justified. (Para 8)