Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy said that though the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy was conducting workshops to ensure that presiding officers do not call child witnesses to the court repeatedly, the court suggested that the officers could also be given training on the practical art of dealing with child witnesses.

“The subject, especially the practical art of dealing with child witnesses, can also be imparted at the Academy. 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,” the court said.

The court added that the routine questions which the presiding officer was supposed to put to the child, like asking for the child's name, etc were not merely formal questions but a rapport-building exercise. The court added that at the end of the friendly questions, the Presiding Officer was expected to have built a rapport with the child and the child should feel comfortable speaking with the Presiding Officer.

The court also added that while the prosecution attempted to bring every offending ingredient to record and the defence attempted to prove the prosecution wrong, the Presiding Officer was to focus on the best interest of the child. The court added that the role of the Presiding Officer was like dispersion of light through a prism, which takes in the sharp rays of light but emits a vibgyor. The court remarked that like the prism, the Presiding Officer was expected to take in the questions from both sides, reframe it in a child-friendly manner and then put it to the child.

“The prosecutor's objective is to bring on record every offending ingredient in the act against the child and establish the accused's guilt. The defence will be interested in showing the prosecution to be wrong and establishing the innocence of the accused. However, the Presiding Officer shall bear in mind the overarching best interests of the child over the above mentioned objects. The role of the Presiding Officer in the entire exercise is like the dispersion of light through a prism that takes in the sharp ray of light but emits a pleasant vibgyor. In the process, the prism does not emit any of its own but only truly reflects what is fed into it. Similarly, the Presiding Officer's position is to reframe the questions in a child-friendly manner, keeping the best interests of the child in mind, and put them to the child,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea filed by an accused in a POCSO case, against an order of the POCSO court allowing a plea filed by the prosecution to recall the victim child.

The accused argued that while examining the child, the Presiding Officer had recorded that the child was deposing with a frightened expression. It was submitted that the prosecution had not intervened to stop the child's deposition on the ground that the child was not in a proper frame of mind, and the court did not record anything to disregard whatever the child said. The accused thus argued that when everything had been duly recorded, there was no necessity of recalling the child once again.

The accused argued that recalling the child would only enable the other witnesses to tutor the child and defeat his valuable right to rely on the child's testimony.

The prosecution, on the other hand, submitted that it had a duty to elicit the truth and since the child had earlier deposed in fear, the prosecution had a duty to examine the child once again so that the truth could come out.

The court noted that the case presented a dilemma between the prosecution of a monstrosity offence and the trauma undergone by the child, the need to protect and heal them and to help them have a normal childhood. The court noted that it was not as if the entire prosecution case was dependent on the deposition of the child. The court made it clear that it could not allow the child to relive the trauma. The court added that the very purpose of protecting the child's interest, which is projected through the Act, would be defeated if the child is called to the court repeatedly.

The court also pointed out that there was a general apathy on the part of the bar in understanding the importance of healing and the child's right to move on after deposing. The court highlighted that cross-examinations were usually skipped and recall petitions were routinely filed seeking to recall the victim. The court remarked that unless the bar came out of the apathy, the dilemma of subjecting the child to secondary victimisation would continue.

“A vast majority of the Bar refuse to even acknowledge/understand the importance of healing and the child's right to move on after deposing. Cross examinations are skipped, and recall petitions are thereafter filed very casually, often citing the usual stereotypical reasons, such as the senior advocate who is to cross-examine not being present on that day, etc. Unless the Bar comes out of this apathy shown towards children involved, the dilemma between subjecting children to secondary victimisation and the valuable right of defence of the accused would continue. But the time has come to focus on the paramount - that is - the best interests of the child,” the court said.

Thus, noting that recalling will not be in the best interest of the child, the court set aside the order of the Special Court. The court however, made it clear that the prosecution could proceed with the trial and prove the offence in the manner known to law by adducing other evidence.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr R Muthukumar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: Paulpandiyan v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

Case No: CRL OP No. 28664 of 2025