Delhi High Court Calls for Sensitive Handling of Child Witnesses in POCSO Cases

The Delhi High Court has emphasised that the criminal justice system must adopt a sensitive and balanced approach when dealing with child witnesses, particularly victims of sexual offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while hearing a petition filed by three minor victims who challenged the issuance of bailable warrants against one of them by a trial court after she failed to appear during proceedings.

During the hearing, the High Court was informed that one of the minor victims had been called to appear before the court as many as eleven times merely for the purpose of hearing arguments on a bail application. The Court observed that such repeated appearances were contrary to the spirit of the legal safeguards intended to protect child victims during criminal proceedings.

The Court noted that repeated summoning of a child victim to court can cause significant psychological distress and may lead to re traumatisation.

“…it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the victims were called upon to appear before the Court on about eleven occasions only for the purpose of hearing arguments on the bail application. Such repeated appearance of the victims was clearly not in consonance with the spirit of the directions issued in XXXX v. State,” the Court observed.

Justice Sharma highlighted that once a child witness is summoned for recording evidence, the Special Court should make every effort to conduct the examination in chief and cross examination without unnecessary adjournments.

According to the Court, repeated adjournments that compel child victims to appear multiple times defeat the purpose of the statutory safeguards introduced under the POCSO framework.

The High Court also referred to existing provisions under the law which require the prompt recording of testimony in such cases. Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act specifically mandates that a child should not be called repeatedly to testify, while Section 35 requires that the evidence of the child victim be recorded expeditiously.

The Court stressed that these provisions reflect the legislative intent to ensure that children are not subjected to prolonged exposure to the court process.

The Bench further pointed out that existing judicial guidelines permit the use of technological tools such as video conferencing or live link testimony for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses.

Such measures, the Court observed, can help ensure that the testimony of child victims is recorded in a secure environment while simultaneously safeguarding the accused’s right to a fair trial.

“In the opinion of this Court, the objection of the victim child in such cases, to the grant of bail to the accused, could be recorded at the first instance itself. Once the views of the victim have been noted, the bail application can thereafter be contested on her behalf by her counsel or authorised representative,” the Court observed.

It added that insisting on the presence of the child victim on multiple dates during bail proceedings can cause unnecessary distress and undermine the safeguards designed to protect vulnerable witnesses.

The petition before the High Court was filed by three minor victims who were about fifteen years old at the time of the incident. According to the petitioners, they had been repeatedly summoned by the trial court for the purpose of recording their evidence.

The petitioners pointed out that one of the victims had been called to court nine times before her testimony was completed, another had been summoned four times, and the third had been required to appear six times.

The repeated appearances, they argued, caused considerable emotional strain and disrupted the lives of the young victims.

While considering the matter, the High Court also clarified that the term “vulnerable witness” in criminal proceedings includes victims of sexual offences as well as child victims under the POCSO Act, who require a protective and sensitive approach during investigation and trial.

Although the Court highlighted the issue and expressed concern over the manner in which the victims had been repeatedly summoned, it declined to frame fresh guidelines on the subject.

The Bench observed that comprehensive directions already exist under judgments of the Supreme Court as well as under the Delhi High Court’s Guidelines for Recording Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses, 2024.

The Court indicated that strict adherence to these existing guidelines would be sufficient to ensure that child victims are protected from unnecessary exposure to the court process.

Case Title: Minor Child K & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Date of Judgement: 13.03.2026