An urge towards protecting vulnerable witnesses
Criminal
The Madras High Court confirmed a conviction and sentence of the accused by a trial court for the rape of a minor. It rejected contentions that the victim’s testimony was false or fabricated, noting the same to be sufficient on close scrutiny and tutoring of the victim could not be “readily inferred” without direct or circumstantial evidence. The Court also expressed displeasure towards the treatment of the victim in court. It derided the questions asked to determine her competence – her father’s name, her age, educational qualifications and where she was at the time of examination in court. Justice Nagamuthu opined “the court had not recorded whether the answers given were rational and sufficient…few questions as though an empty formality will not satisfy the legal requirements”; though he also cautioned against questions taking on the guise of cross-examination. Instead, questions to test the competence of the witness should be framed taking into account their social background, level of literacy and age.
The Court was also mindful of procedural failings during examination of the victim. It noted that examination was not “conducted in camera”, nor were guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court followed. It directed States and subordinate courts to adhere to such measures – accused kept out of sight, questions in cross-examination asked by presiding officer, not embarrassing the victim, sufficient breaks given – that make child victims comfortable. Protecting minors, whether from direct participation in trial or various hurt that may follow legal proceedings, has gained impetus recently. Earlier in the year, the Delhi High Court had ordered that party names in familial or guardianship disputes would appear abbreviated in the cause title and other parts of the judgment. Also to prevent inadvertent identification, names of children in such judgments were also to be abbreviated.
Relevant : Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0036/1951
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Others MANU/SC/0366/1996
Sakshi v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. MANU/SC/0523/2004
HK v. PK MANU/DE/3697/2015
Tags : RAPE MINOR COMPETENT VICTIM VULNERABLE
Share : 
|