'Child Abuse Survivors Must Not Be Re-Traumatized' : Supreme Court Rejects POCSO Convict's Plea To Recall Victim For Cross Examination

The Supreme Court has rejected a plea filed by a man convicted for raping a 11-year-old girl seeking to recall her to the stand for cross-examination. The Court noted that his conviction by the trial court was upheld by the High Court, and said that granting such a relief would re-traumatize survivors of child abuse and undermine the justice system.

“Courts have a duty to ensure that survivors of child abuse are not re-traumatized by the very justice system they turn for protection. Allowing such technical plea being raised in cases of such gravity, especially when guilt has been established after full-fledged trial and confirmed in appeal, risks undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. It sends the wrong message/signal that procedural tactics override substantive findings. That cannot be permitted”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria observed added –

“Let it be stated unambiguously: to grant relief in case of this nature after the guilt has been proved and affirmed, would not merely undermine the majesty of the law, it would amount to betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child in this country. It would be in the considered view of this Court, a judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches her child to believe in justice.”

Appellant Arjun Sonar was convicted and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment by the Special POCSO Court, East Sessions Division, Tezu under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction on July 1, 2024. Thus he approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court rejected Sonar's contention that he had been denied effective legal assistance because his counsel had not cross-examined the prosecutrix. The Court observed that the girl had made a detailed and coherent statement under Section 164 of the CrPC which was corroborated by medical evidence confirming signs of recent forcible sexual intercourse.

Further, the Court noted, her birth certificate established her age as below 12 years at the time of the incident. The Supreme Court held that the defence counsel's decision not to cross-examine the prosecutrix did not vitiate the proceedings. It also rejected arguments regarding the late filing of the CFSL report, noting that the report did not contradict the consistent oral and medical evidence.

The Court held that in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity in the appreciation of evidence, no case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution was made out. It observed that recalling a child victim after conclusion of trial and concurrent findings of guilt raises serious concern.

“Courts must be vigilant not to allow procedural submissions to evolve into tactics for harassment”, it said.

It said its judicial conscience did not permit casual indulgence in appeals where the conviction had been rendered after a full-fledged trial, affirmed in appeal, and the testimony of the victim was clear, cogent and duly corroborated.

“This Court has repeatedly held that in serious offence under the POCSO Act, particularly those involving familial betrayal of trust, relief cannot be granted as a matter of routine when two courts have concurrently found guilt and the findings are not shown to be perverse interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is neither warranted nor justified”, the Court emphasised.

The Court emphasised that the legal process cannot become a means to perpetuate injustice under the guise of procedural lacunae. It said that in matters involving sexual violence against children, the paramount consideration isn't the convenience of accused, but the integrity of the victim's testimony, the finality of lawful findings, and the need to prevent secondary victimisation.

“Once the trial has concluded and the testimony has been recorded, in accordance with law, any attempt to recall the victim for re-examination, must be treated with extreme caution. In the absence of compelling legal necessity, it cannot be allowed. Such attempts must be discouraged, wherever necessary it should be nipped at the bud especially when they threaten to re-traumatize the victim”, the Court observed.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. It also directed the State of Arunachal Pradesh to pay ₹10,50,000 as compensation to the victim, to be deposited in a fixed deposit for five years under the monitoring of the Arunachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.

“This Court reiterates that justice must not be limited to conviction, it must, where the law so permits, include restitution. In awarding the aforesaid compensation, we reaffirm the constitutional commitment to protect the rights and dignity of child survivors, and to ensure that the justice delivered is substantive, compassionate and complete”, the Court stated.

Case No. – Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 34304/2025

Case Title – Arjun Sonar v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 935

Click Here To Read/Download Order