Facts
The accused sexually assaulted a 11 year old child, and an FIR was consequently registered by the child’s mother. The accused had approached the Court to seek bail on medical grounds, as he was HIV+.
Judgment
While rejecting the bail application, the Court took note of the delay in trial and the fact that the child’s testimony was yet to be recorded. The court noted the negative effects caused to the child survivor and the prosecution’s case by the delay in recording statements of the victim. Despite a statutory requirement under Section 35 of the POCSO Act to expeditiously record the child’s statement, the court noted that there is often a long delay resulting in some parts of the incident being forgotten or suppressed by the child, causing them mental trauma and prejudicing the case of the prosecution. In this light, the Court issued guidelines to ensure expeditious recording of statements of child victims. The court stressed that the recording of the child’s evidence should be completed in a single day to avoid calling the child survivor to court repeatedly. Further, the court stated that repeated adjournments must not be granted, all safeguards and protections required need to be followed scrupulously, and stressed that the parents of the child or any other person in whom the child has reposed trust should be present at the time of examination. The court also directed that the directions of the Supreme Court in In re Children in Street Situations and other judgments in this regard be followed scrupulously while conducting trials under the POCSO Act.
High Court of Delhi