‘Like mother showing moon to baby’: Train for child witnesses, court tells POCSO judges

“Many of our judicial officers who have practical experience of such incidents have to share their experiences. Practical exercises and discussions on interviewing/examining child victims shall be part of the curriculum. The services of field experts shall be utilised,” it added.

The matter is related to a case registered in 2018 under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The final report was filed in 2020, but the child, who was three years old at the time of registration of the FIR, was examined before the special court only on August 11, 2025, when she was about 10 years old.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy said the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, which was conducting workshops on the issue, should provide copies of the related material to every special court.

Judges need practical training

The high court said judicial officers dealing with child survivors of abuse have to balance the need to elicit relevant evidence with the need to protect children from further trauma.

“Every Judicial Officer or a Judge are not an expert in analysing child development, its ability to retain the details of the incident, the kind of trauma, post-incident disorder, etc, but all of us have to keep in mind the heavy burden of eliciting relevant evidence without pain/trauma to the child,” the court added.

The high court said the presiding officer has a central role in making the examination child-friendly, adding that the questions from the prosecution and defence are to be reframed in a manner the child can understand, while keeping the child’s best interests in mind.

It also said preliminary questions about a child’s name, school and basic understanding are not simply formalities. They are intended to build rapport so the child feels comfortable speaking to the presiding officer.

Referring to practice material prepared by the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) on rapport-building, accurate reporting, memory, abuse enquiry and questioning techniques, the court said that every magistrate recording statements of young survivors and every special court should bear these directions in mind.

“Thus, it can be seen that we have a long way to go in understanding the victim children, their inner voice, and the art of empathising with them,” it added.

Judicial academy asked to strengthen training

The high court said the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, which was already conducting workshops on the issue, should further endeavour to provide copies of the related material to every special court.

“The Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, which has already been conducting workshops in this regard, shall further endeavour to supply copies of this manual and related materials, preferably a Tamil version as well, to every Special Court and to the Learned Magistrates,” the court said.

It also said that practical exercises and discussions on interviewing and examining child survivors should form part of the academy’s curriculum. Judicial officers with practical experience of such cases should share their experiences, while the services of field experts should be utilised.

The training directions came against the backdrop of the court’s concerns about the delay in bringing the child before the trial court. The high court noted that an attempt to record her statement before a judicial magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on the day of the alleged incident had to be abandoned because she was crying continuously and was not in a position to give a statement. The final report was filed in 2020, but the child’s evidence was recorded only in 2025.

Court flags 7-year delay

“First and foremost, it is the system’s failure that the child has been brought before the Court after seven years to relive the trauma,” the high court said, noting that the police took two years to investigate and file the final report, after which the case remained pending, with the court referring to the Covid-19 pandemic and other developments.

When the child eventually testified before the special court on August 11, 2025, precautions were taken to ensure she could not see the accused or his counsel. Questions from the prosecution and defence were routed through the presiding officer and reframed before being put to her. The trial court, however, recorded that the child was answering with a grim face.

Her chief examination was completed, and the accused reported “No Cross”. The prosecution later sought to recall the child, citing the fear she was experiencing during her examination.

The high court said the case presented a dilemma between the need to prosecute the alleged offence and the need to protect a child from further trauma. It held that the POCSO Act takes the prosecution of the offender and the child’s well-being “hand in hand”.

Order recalling child set aside

Referring to Section 33 of the POCSO Act, including the safeguard that a child should not be repeatedly called for examination before courts, the high court said that recalling the child after her evidence was already on record would defeat the protective purpose of the law.

“Recalling a child witness, particularly the victim of a sexual offence, either at the instance of the prosecution or at the instance of the accused, cannot be permitted by this Court,” the court said.

The court set aside the September 29, 2025 order allowing the child’s recall. It clarified, however, that the prosecution could continue with the trial and seek to prove the alleged offence through other evidence in accordance with the law.