Facts
A writ petition was filed by way of public interest litigation, by Sakshi, which is an organisation to provide legal, medical, residential, psychological or any other help, assistance or charitable support for women. They prayed that “sexual intercourse” as contained in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code should include all forms of penetration such as penile/vaginal penetration, penile/oral penetration, penile/anal penetration, finger/vaginal and finger/anal penetration and object/vaginal penetration and such cases should be investigated by the State and booked under the offences of Section 375, 376 and 376A to 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 accordingly.
Judgment
The Court while rejected the interpretation prayed for by Sakshi, it laid down following guidelines based on suggestions made by Sakshi for incorporating special provisions in child sexual abuse cases: (i) a screen or some such arrangements may be made where the victim or witnesses (who may be equally vulnerable like the victim) do not see the body or face of the accused; (ii) the questions put in cross-examination on behalf of the accused, insofar as they relate directly to the incident, should be given in writing to the presiding officer of the court who may put them to the victim or witnesses in a language which is clear and is not embarrassing; (iii) the victim of child abuse or rape, while giving testimony in court, should be allowed sufficient breaks as and when required. These guidelines are in addition to those laid down in Gurmit Singh.