Child can't relive trauma endlessly: Karnataka High Court shocked by delay in 12-year-old POCSO case

The Karnataka High Court recently expressed shock over the fact that the trial in a child rape case from 2014 was yet to conclude. .Justice M Nagaprasanna termed the continuing delay in a case concerning the rape of child who was barely six years old when the crime took place, a tragedy that was deeply disquieting. Justice delayed, in such cases, is not a mere procedural lapse but a continuing injustice, the Court said. Every unnecessary adjournment of the trial in such a case prolonged the victim's trauma and ensured that she remained captive to her trauma for over a decade, the Court observed. "It shocks the conscience of the Court that it is pending for the last 12 years. Nothing can be more appalling than a case concerning the rape of a minor child pending in the Court for 12 long years," the Court added in its July 3 order. .The Court proceeded to order the trial court to complete the trial within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order. It observed that the victim cannot be left to endlessly relive her traumatic experience."A child who has suffered the indignity of sexual abuse cannot be compelled to relive the trauma endlessly because the criminal justice system has surrendered to the culture of adjournments. Every unnecessary adjournment compounds the original injury and converts the process itself into an instrument of oppression," it said.The Court also lamented about how mechanically adjournments are often sought, even in such sensitive cases."Adjournments should be the exception, but unfortunately have become the rule. The Apex Court has repeatedly deprecated this unhealthy culture of mechanical adjournments and has warned that such acts of adjournments ultimately become a silent accomplice to miscarriage of justice.".A child who has suffered sexual abuse cannot be compelled to relive trauma endlessly because the criminal justice system has surrendered to the culture of adjournments.Karnataka High Court.The Court made the observation while dealing with a plea concerning an ongoing trial in a case registered in 2014 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case concerns the rape of a girl child at a school. During the trial of the case, it was noticed that a statement given by the child to a magistrate during the POCSO case investigation was not signed by the magistrate or the child. The child's father was concerned that the lack of such signatures may be cited to discredit the child's statement to the magistrate.He, therefore, urged the trial court to summon the magistrate to support the credibility of the recorded statement. After the trial court refused to do so, he moved the High Court with his plea to summon the magistrate. By its July 3 ruling, the High Court refused to issue any such directive. It noted that the POCSO Act does not require such statements of child victims to be signed. "The statutory scheme of the POCSO Act and Section 164 of the Code, does not oblige a child victim to subscribe his or her signature to a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code. Equally, neither do the provisions of the POCSO Act and Section 164 of the Code prescribe the affixture of the Magistrate's signature as an indispensable condition precedent, for examining the validity of such recorded statements, in the manner sought to be canvassed before this Court," it said. .The Court observed that the petitioner's apprehensions about whether the child's Section 164 statement would be accepted were only speculative at the present stage. "Should the victim, during the course of trial, resile from the statement, or should the accused seek to impeach its evidentiary value by relying upon the absence of the signatures of either the child or the Magistrate, appropriate questions may then arise for consideration before the trial Court. That eventuality remains entirely conjectural at this juncture," it said. The Court also reiterated that magistrates cannot be routinely summoned by trial courts."The Magistrate is not to be summoned merely because a party entertains a speculative apprehension regarding the authenticity of the statement or seeks to cure perceived procedural irregularities. The judicial act of recording a statement under Section 164 of the Code enjoys a presumption of regularity, and the sanctity attached to such proceedings cannot be lightly diluted by routinely compelling judicial officers to enter the witness box," it said. .It, therefore, closed the plea filed by the victim's father, but issued strict directions for a prompt and time-bound conclusion of the trial."The timeline fixed is not intended to be aspirational, but obligatory and shall be adhered to in its letter and spirit," the Court warned. .Advocates Spoorthi Cotha and Hari Om Tiwari represented the petitioner.High Court Government Pleader Rashmi Patel appeared for the State. .[Read Order]