CHENNAI: The implementation of the Pocso Act, which was brought in to protect children from sexual abuse, itself should not be allowed to become a further source of trauma to the child, the Madras high court has said.“The child cannot be repeatedly called to re-live the ordeal. As soon as possible, the child must be healed,” Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy said while refusing to permit reexamination of a child of sexual abuse survivor at the request of the accused.The accused contended that when the child was subjected to chief-examination by the trial court, his counsel was not present and hence the child was not cross-examined. “Due to the counsel’s default, I cannot lose my valuable right to cross-examine the crucial witness. The counsel has been changed now, and the trial is being conducted properly,” he said.Refusing to concur, the judge said: “It is casually argued that counsel was not present, and that a new counsel is now engaged. The lack of understanding is very clear. The child cannot be made to re-live the incident over and again. It is not about granting an opportunity to the accused alone. But it is about the right to life of the child itself.”Therefore, whenever the child witnesses, especially a tender child such as the one aged only about 10 years, is examined, the parties cannot casually take it for granted that they can recall the witness and cross-examine her on yet another day. The same is against the very purpose of the POCSO Act, the court said.“In the present case, though it is not an aggravated penetrative sexual assault, still the child undergoes the ordeal of reliving the trauma at many instances while interviewed by the child welfare committee, medical examination, recording her statement by the investigating officer, and during the trial,” the judge added.Therefore, there is no way courts can permit any further re-living of the ordeal by recalling the child victims on applications for recall for cross-examination, which would amount to secondary victimisation. The POCSO Act specifically imposes a duty on the special court to ensure that the child is not called repeatedly to testify in court, the court said and dismissed the application.
