Safeguards of Child Testimony

The court held that a statement under the POCSO Act can be made only to a police officer or magistrate. Counsellors and NGOs can merely play a facilitative role and cannot take a statement from the child. Further, the court clarified that the notes of the counsellor or the expert are confidential and cannot be…

Para 6-8, 10, 12, 14-17, 19-21, 77-78, 87-89, 93-94

The court interpreted Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”) in reference to POCSO cases and held that evidence of child survivors cannot be rejected per se but merits close scrutiny by the court as a rule of prudence. The court further discussed the various aspects of determining the competence of child survivor,…

Para 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50-52, 57, 58

The court held that the child’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC in the course of investigation cannot be considered as substantive evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act. The court further held that the requirement of expeditious recording of a child victim’s evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act is…

Para 21-27, 41- 44, 49, 50, 56-61

The court took note of the problem of long delays in recording testimonies of child survivors and the adverse effects it has on the child and the prosecution’s case. In light of these observations, the court framed and issued guidelines to be followed to ensure expeditious recording of testimonies of child survivors. The court stressed…

Para 11 - 15; Page 2 - 5

Applications for recalling a child survivor under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) are subject to Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act on the principle of generalia specialibus non-derogant. The conflicting rights of the accused and the survivor have to be balanced when considering such an application.

Para 25; Page 17