The Delhi High Court recently criticised a trial court for its apparent reluctance to exempt a rape victim from being physically present for a hearing of a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act),.A single-judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that special consideration must be given to survivors of sexual violence since they have to relive their trauma when they are called to testify about the crime before a court.Their requests to be exempted from having to physically appear before the trial court cannot be equated with those of hardened criminals, the High Court warned."One has to be conscious of the intersectionality of a girl child who has undergone trauma of sexual violence ... Exemption requests of victims of sexual violence cannot be treated at par with such requests of hardened criminals," the High Court said..In the present case, the Court noted that the victim's counsel had informed the trial court that she was ill and therefore could not appear physically for a court hearing that was scheduled on March 18. In response, the trial court asked the station house officer (SHO) of the Shalimar Bagh police to verify if she was indeed ill, before posting the case for hearing the following day. The High Court disagreed with the trial court's approach on this aspect."A victim (of sexual violence), on being summoned by court to depose and virtually relive the trauma, is bound to get jitters and consequences like loose motions and fever etc, caused by nervousness and agony. This is not something unexpected for which a trial court, that too the one specially constituted to deal with such offences, would venture into exercise of verification on the very first instance," the High Court observed. .A victim (has to) virtually relive trauma. Exemption requests of victims of sexual violence cannot be treated at par with requests of hardened criminals.Delhi High Court.Moreover, even though the trial court's directive was to the SHO or the investigating officer, a male constable was sent to check on the rape victim's condition. This too drew criticism from the High Court. The Court proceeded to call from a report from the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) on this lapse. "What is extremely appalling is that as disclosed by learned counsel of prosecutrix, on the night of 18.03.2025, a male constable went to the house of the prosecutrix, though the directions of the trial court were to the IO/SHO. In this regard, the concerned ACP shall submit a detailed report by the next date. I also strongly deprecate that despite seriousness of the matter, neither the IO SI Ritu nor the SHO concerned has bothered to appear today," the March 20 order said. .The Court was hearing a bail application filed by two persons accused in the POCSO case. The applicants were accused of raping a minor after allegedly administering an intoxicating substance to her.During the bail hearing, the trial court's March 18 and March 19 orders in the matter were brought to the notice of the High Court. The two trial court orders indicated its apparent reluctance to exempt the victim from physical appearance despite her illness. It also referred to a male constable visiting the rape victim to check on her health condition."Those two orders raise serious issues of sensitivity expected from the courts specially constituted to deal with victims of sexual violence," the High Court found. .The High Court also acknowledged that the trial court's directions may have been prompted by an earlier order to expeditiously complete the trial against the accused. However, such directives to promptly complete the trial cannot be interpreted in a way that may inflict further trauma on the victim, the High Court said. "Of course, the predecessor bench directed expeditious trial in view of incarceration of the applicants. But that cannot be read in such a manner as to cause such a trauma on such a victim, as if it is she who was the aggressor. Sensitivity while dealing with children who are victims of sexual violence is the most important facet of such specially constituted courts," the High Court underscored. .The matter has been listed next on April 22. .Advocates Neha Singh, Rahul Vats, Rahul Kumar, and Saurabh Singh appeared for the petitioners (accused).Assistant Public Prosecutor Laksh Khanna appeared for the State. Advocate Bahuli Sharma appeared for the prosecutrix..[Read order]
