New Delh: The Delhi High Court has said that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, 2012, is a gender-neutral legislation while dismissing arguments claiming that the law is being misused.
The remarks were made while hearing a Pocso case where the accused attempted to portray the act as gender-biased.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, addressing the accused’s contention that the act is being misused, remarked that the Act is impartial when it comes to victimised children.
She criticised the argument made in the case, where it was alleged that the complainant had coerced the applicant by involving her minor daughter in order to recover a friendly loan and deemed such language as insensitive.
The court further said that any law, regardless of whether it is gender-based, carries the potential for misuse. It said that the enactment of laws cannot be stopped solely due to the fear of misuse.
Counsel for accused contended that the Pocso Act is gender-based and therefore being misused. To which, the court said that such claims are not only inappropriate but also misleading.
The case before the court involved the accused challenging a trial court’s decision to dismiss his request for recalling the minor victim and her mother for cross-examination.
The victim, who was only seven years old at the time of the incident, had already undergone extensive examination and cross-examination. The court rejected the plea saying that subjecting the child victim to repeated cross-examinations about the traumatic incident after several years would be unjust.
“The victim, being only of seven years of age having gone through this repeated trauma on number of occasions and period mentioned above, cannot be directed to appear once again after six years to depose about the same incident, only on the ground that the previous counsel had cross-examined the witness in a manner which the new counsel does not find sufficient or appropriate,” it said.
It noted that if the cross-examination had been brief and merely formal, the decision might have been different.
The court stressed the importance of providing a fair trial to the accused, but also cautioned against unjustified and repetitive cross-examinations that could adversely affect the child victim.
“…though the accused has to be granted and ensured a fair trial, it cannot mean being afforded unjustified repeated opportunities of cross-examination in every case to indicate fair trial. The case of an accused has to be meritorious where a relief as prayed for in the present case, can be granted,” the court said.
–IANS