Supreme Court upholds POCSO conviction, rejects recall of victim, stresses dignity of child abuse survivors.
Case in NewsThe Supreme Court in Child Abuse Survivors Must Not Be re-Traumatised rejected recalling victim in a POCSO Case . |
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.
Case Overview
Case Name:Arjun Sonar vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh (SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 34304/2025)
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by convict Arjun Sonar, sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment for raping an 11-year-old girl . His conviction was affirmed by the Gauhati High Court under Sections 376 and 506 IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act . The convict sought to recall the child survivor for cross-examination which the Court rejected .
Step into the world of justice with Courtroom Chronicles
Key Aspects
The case involved questions of protecting the dignity of child survivors against procedural tactics . The Bench stressed that courts must ensure that justice does not become a source of secondary trauma for victims . The main factual and legal issues included :
- Convict argued lack of cross-examination denied him effective defence .
- Victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC corroborated by medical findings .
- Birth certificate confirmed age below 12 years at the incident .
- Delay in CFSL report argued but held immaterial as oral and medical evidence consistent .
Legal Insights
The Court examined relevant provisions of law to resolve the matter :
- Section 376 IPC – Punishment for rape .
- Section 506 IPC – Criminal intimidation .
- Section 12, POCSO Act, 2012 – Sexual harassment of a child .
- Section 164 CrPC – Validity of victim’s recorded statement before magistrate .
- Article 136, Constitution of India, – Limits on Supreme Court interference in concurrent findings of guilt .
- Principle : Technical procedural rights cannot override substantive justice in POCSO trials .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that recalling the child survivor would re-traumatize her and undermine justice . It confirmed the conviction, emphasized protecting survivors of Child Abuse and directed the State of Arunachal Pradesh to pay ₹10,50,000 as compensation reaffirming the constitutional commitment to victim dignity and restitution .
Source – Supreme Court of India
Read also – Constitution of India
The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice. Discover more at thelawgist.org.
