HC dismisses plea by accused to produce child victim in court

Making it clear that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, mandates that the victim child should not be exposed to the accused at the time of testifying, the Madras High Court has dismissed a plea by an accused to set aside the order by Mahila Court here which refused to produce the child to the court again and again.
"At the same time, POSCO Act protects the right of the accused to remain in a place from where he can hear the statement of the child", Justice P N Prakash said dismissing the petition filed by the accused to bring the child victim.

"POCSO Act is a special Act which mandates that a child victim should not be called repeatedly to testify in the court. The trial court was very correct in placing reliance upon Section 33(5) of POCSO Act dismissing the plea by the accused to produce the girl victim on the ground that he failed to avail the opportunity to cross-examine her on February 2, 2014", the judge said in his order recently.
The case relates to attempt to rape of a 14-year-old girl by S Sankara Varman.
A case was registered against him in 2013 and after investigation, police filed a final report before the Mahila Court against Varman for offences under various sections of IPC and under POSCO Act.

Charges were framed against him and the girl was examined by the court on February 5, 2014. At that time, the accused did not cross-examine her.

He later filed an application to bring the girl and her parents to court for cross-examination.
The trial court had on April 18, 2016, allowed the plea in part and allowed to bring parents to bring to the court and dismissed the petition with regard to the girl, against which he filed a plea in the High Court to set aside the order.
Rejecting the contention of the counsel for the accused that the presence of the girl was essential for cross examination, Justice Prakash said section 273 of Cr.Pc clearly mentioned that for taking evidence of a woman below the age of 18 years, who is alleged to have been subjected to rape or any other sexual offence, the court may take appropriate measures to ensure that such a woman is not confronted by the accused.

"At the same time, it protects the right of the accused to remain in a place from where he can hear the statement of the child. It does not give a carte blanche to the accused to absent himself when the child witness is present and later claim that there is violation of Section 36(1) of the POCSO Act", the judge said dismissing the plea and directed the Mahila Court to complete the trial within three months.