Facts
The present case notes the growing trend of NGOs and private counsellors acting as the medium of communication between the child and the police by recording the child survivor’s statement. Further, another issue that was flagged was the issue of recording multiple statements of the child survivors and their overall evidentiary value. A reference was made by the Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board to the High Court to clarify the position of law with regard to the recording of statements of child victims by NGOs or private counsellors and multiple recordings of statements of child victims. The reference notes in the absence of any law sanctioning it, a common practice has emerged in Delhi for the statement to be recorded by an NGO and then be submitted to the police. The reference notes that both these questions involve substantial questions of law and, accordingly, refers them to the High Court for guidance.
Judgment
The court discusses Section 26(1) of the POCSO Act and other relevant provisions and concludes that the statement of the child can be recorded only by a police officer or magistrate. NGO workers and counsellors can only play a facilitative role and cannot record the statement. The court further holds that any and all counselling notes and reports made by the counsellor are confidential and cannot be included in the chargesheet or the trial court record. In reference to the second question, the court holds that in cases of children, disclosure is a process and therefore allows the recording of multiple statements by the investigating authorities. The court then goes into discussing the evidentiary value of the child survivor’s statements and clarifies that a seemingly contradictory initial account would not negate the statement completely. The statements are required to be read together as a whole and not as isolated parts.