Bombay High Court Upholds Protection for Trauma Survivors in Rape Case
The Bombay High Court has firmly rejected a petition filed by a 46-year-old father seeking to reopen the cross-examination of his minor daughter, whom he is accused of raping, along with other family members. The court emphasized that the survivor and witnesses are already severely traumatized mentally and socially, and recalling them would cause further harm.
Court Cites Trauma and Fair Trial Concerns
Justice Amit Jamsandekar, presiding over the case, observed that the survivor, her mother, and her sister have already undergone extensive trauma. Their cross-examination concluded in December 2024, and forcing them to relive the ordeal over a year later would be unjust. "It would be unfair to put these vulnerable individuals in a traumatised situation once again under the shadow of a fair trial," Justice Jamsandekar stated.
The court noted that during the original evidence recording, the president of the Goa Children’s Court documented that the survivor was "continuously weeping and taking time to depose," highlighting the emotional distress involved.
Background of the Case and Petitioner's Claims
The father is accused of repeatedly raping his younger daughter between 2018 and 2019. After the Goa Children’s Court denied his plea to recall witnesses for further cross-examination, he approached the High Court. He argued that his previous advocate failed to ask crucial questions during cross-examination, leading to a miscarriage of justice by not confronting witnesses or facts essential for his defense.
High Court's Rationale for Dismissal
The High Court dismissed these claims, stating that allowing cross-examination to be reopened on such grounds would set a dangerous precedent with no end to the trial. It emphasized that the court's powers must be exercised exceptionally, not routinely, and vague allegations cannot permit "fishing attempts."
"The approach to fairness in trial ought also to be viewed from the perspectives of the victim, the witnesses, society, and the criminal justice system," the court held. It added that grounds like an advocate not asking certain questions are not valid or tangible reasons for reopening proceedings.
Implications for Special Legislation
The court warned that allowing such pleas would undermine the objectives of special laws like the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Goa Children’s Act, which are designed to protect minors and ensure swift justice. This decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to balancing fair trial rights with the need to shield vulnerable victims from additional trauma.
