On Wednesday, the Supreme Court emphasized that a minor survivor of sexual assault should not be repeatedly summoned to testify in court.

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, leading the bench, highlighted the need to avoid subjecting a child who has already endured the trauma of sexual offenses to repeated court appearances to recount the same incident.

The court was addressing a petition challenging the decisions of the High Court of Orissa and the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in Nayagarh. These decisions had refused to recall the minor survivor for additional examination as a witness.

The accused allegedly kidnapped a minor girl, forced her into marriage at a temple, and coerced her into sexual relations. Her rescue came with the help of her parents and the police.

The accused were charged in 2020 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the POCSO Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

During the trial, the special court denied the accused's request to recall the minor survivor for re-examination, citing Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, which prohibits repeatedly summoning a child to testify.

The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that the POCSO Act is designed to protect children from sexual offenses and ensure their well-being throughout the trial process. The court emphasized that Section 33(5) requires special courts to avoid repeated testimony from child survivors.

While acknowledging that Section 33(5) does not constitute an absolute bar to recalling a survivor, the Supreme Court stressed that each case must be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances. The court noted that the survivor, who was approximately 15 years old at the time of the incident, had already been cross-examined twice by the defense.

Dismissing the special leave petition filed by the accused, the top court said, "Ample opportunities were given to the defence counsel to cross-examine the victim. When the victim has been examined and then cross-examined at length twice already, mechanically allowing an application for recall of the victim, especially in trial of offences under the POCSO Act, would defeat the very purpose of the statute."

The court also emphasized that an application to recall a witness must be bona fide and genuine. Such requests should not be granted automatically but should be carefully scrutinized to ensure they are made with legitimate intent.