An Attempt to Break the Witness Not Permissible: High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petition for Recall of Victim in POCSO Case

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, presided by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajendra Badamikar, dismissed a criminal petition that sought the recall of a victim for further cross-examination in a POCSO case. The court notably observed, "An attempt to break the witness and for that purpose, the witness is being recalled which is not permissible and Court cannot be a party to such an activity."

The petitioner, Manikeppa S/O Hanamappa Helavar, faced charges under Sections 363, 376(2)(n), 354-D, 344, and 376(3) of the IPC, as well as Sections 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The petition challenged an order dated 4th September 2023 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, which rejected an application for recalling the victim, P.W.1, for further cross-examination.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that crucial questions were not posed to the victim, citing omissions and improvements in her testimony. However, the court noted the significant delay in filing the application and obtaining a certified copy of the order, which was not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. The court remarked, "The delay of one year in not filing such an application is not at all explained."

In its analysis, the High Court highlighted the sensitivity of the matter, emphasizing the potential re-victimization and humiliation of the victim if recalled for further cross-examination. The court observed, "The victim was already humiliated by kidnap, rape, and illegal confinement and she was elaborately cross-examined in the Court. After one year, again the witness was being sought to be recalled without disclosing before the learned Special Judge as to what questions are required to be posed."

The court's decision reflects a significant stance on the protection of victims in sensitive cases like those under the POCSO Act. It underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding the dignity and rights of victims, especially minors, in the legal process.

The petition was ultimately dismissed as devoid of merit, with the court concluding that the petitioner’s tactics appeared to be an attempt to protract the proceedings. This ruling sets a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the need for judicial sensitivity in handling cases involving crimes against children.

Date of Decision: 3 January 2024

XXX VERSUS THE STATE THROUGH MUDHOL P.S.