The Delhi High Court has strongly criticized a trial court and the police for their insensitive handling of a rape survivor’s request for exemption from physical appearance in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Justice Girish Kathpalia, presiding over the matter, emphasized the necessity of a compassionate approach when dealing with child survivors of sexual violence, stating, "Sensitivity while dealing with children who are victims of sexual violence is the most important facet of (POCSO) courts."
The case pertained to the bail applications of two accused persons, where the trial court had directed the survivor to physically appear for testimony on March 18, despite her counsel informing the court that she was unwell. Instead of granting immediate exemption, the trial court ordered the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Shalimar Bagh police station to verify her health condition. The High Court took exception to this approach, observing that such a directive amounted to undue scrutiny of a victim’s legitimate request for exemption.
Justice Kathpalia remarked, "A victim (of sexual violence), on being summoned by court to depose and virtually relive the trauma, is bound to get jitters and consequences like loose motions and fever etc, caused by nervousness and agony. This is not something unexpected for which a trial court, that too the one specially constituted to deal with such offences, would venture into exercise of verification on the very first instance."
Further compounding the issue, the High Court was dismayed to learn that, despite the trial court’s directive being addressed to the investigating officer (IO) or the SHO, a male constable was sent to check on the survivor. The High Court found this lapse in compliance with legal protocol to be highly inappropriate, stating, "What is extremely appalling is that as disclosed by learned counsel of prosecutrix, on the night of 18.03.2025, a male constable went to the house of the prosecutrix, though the directions of the trial court were to the IO/SHO."
Justice Kathpalia directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) to submit a detailed report on the matter and further expressed displeasure over the absence of the investigating officer and the SHO in court proceedings. "I also strongly deprecate that despite seriousness of the matter, neither the IO SI Ritu nor the SHO concerned has bothered to appear today."
The High Court also observed that while the trial court may have been guided by a predecessor bench’s order for expeditious trial completion, such directives cannot be interpreted in a manner that places undue hardship on a survivor of sexual violence. Justice Kathpalia stressed, "Of course, the predecessor bench directed expeditious trial in view of incarceration of the applicants. But that cannot be read in such a manner as to cause such a trauma on such a victim, as if it is she who was the aggressor."
The High Court made it clear that the exemption requests of sexual violence survivors must not be equated with those of habitual offenders. "One has to be conscious of the intersectionality of a girl child who has undergone trauma of sexual violence. Exemption requests of victims of sexual violence cannot be treated at par with such requests of hardened criminals."
Given the gravity of the issues involved, the High Court has scheduled the next hearing on April 22, 2025, directing strict compliance with protocols and a survivor-sensitive approach by both the judiciary and law enforcement agencies.
Picture Source :
