Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that society does not often understand the mental trauma that a child experiences when subjected to sexual harassment. The court added that though the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act provides stringent punishment for sexual assault of children, the implementation of the Act itself should not become a source of trauma for the child.

“The very purpose of the enactment of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) is to protect children from sexual abuse. Many people in our society do not understand the mental trauma children experience when subjected to sexual harassment. Even though stringent punishments are provided, and steps are being taken to prevent offences against children, the implementation of the law should not, by itself, become a further source of trauma to the child. The child cannot be repeatedly called to relive the ordeal. As soon as possible, the child has to be healed,” the court observed.

The court observed that the purpose of the POCSO Act was to protect the children. However, the child still had to undergo the ordeal of reliving the trauma while disclosing the incident to the parents or close relative, while being interviewed by the Child Welfare Committee member, while interacting with the Physicians and experts on medical examination, while recording a statement, while being taken to the Magistrate to record a statement under Section 164, and while being examined before the court. The court noted that these instances themselves would cause trauma to the child.

The court underlined that it could not permit any further reliving of the ordeal by recalling the child victim for cross-examination applications filed by the accused. The court held that the same would amount to secondary victimisation. Thus, the court held that in the guise of giving fair opportunity to the accused, the child's right to life could not be violated.

“Therefore, approach has to be victim centric and in the best interest of the child. In the guise of fair opportunity and the routine and stereotypic allegations of counsel not being present on the particular day etc., the child's right to life itself cannot be violated. Secondary victimisation in a sexual abuse case would invade the very right to life of the victim child,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by an accused who was undergoing trial before the POCSO Special Court in Villupuram.

According to the prosecution, the victim children were rearing goats and the accused, who was present there with his cattle, called the victim children near him. Though the elder child wriggled out of his hold and ran, the accused caught hold of the younger child and committed sexual assault on her. The child then pushed him and ran away. The child's statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the child was also called to court for examination-in-chief.

On the date of the chief examination, the accused was present and did not cross-examine the victim. The accused later filed an application to recall the victim child for cross-examination, which was rejected by the court. Against this, the present petition was filed.

The petitioner argued that at the time of the chief examination, the counsel for the accused did not appear before the court. It was argued that the accused's valuable right to cross-examine the crucial witness should not be taken away due to the counsel's default.

The court noted that the examination of the elder child was not yet over and the accused could cross-examine that child. The court also noted that the accused had raised a defence of an existing property dispute, for which he could cross-examine other witnesses and also bring in his own witnesses.

The court observed that even as per Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, a duty was cast upon the Special Court to ensure that the child is not called to the court repeatedly to testify. The court made it clear that the accused could not be permitted to recall the child and had to be content with other opportunity and establish his case by cross-examining other witnesses.

Thus, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. T. Maha Vishnu

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

Case Title: Ramesh v The State of Tamilnadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 329

Case No: CRL OP No. 16742 of 2026