The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea by a man convicted of raping an 11-year-old girl, who sought to recall her for cross-examination. The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria held that such a move would not only re-traumatize the survivor but also undermine the sanctity of justice. The Court stressed that technical pleas should not be allowed to dilute substantive findings after a full-fledged trial and appeal.
The convict, Arjun Sonar, had been sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 376 and 506 IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act by a Special Court in Tezu. His conviction was upheld by the Gauhati High Court in July 2024. Before the Supreme Court, he argued that he was denied effective representation since the victim was not cross-examined. Rejecting this, the Court noted that the girl’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was detailed, corroborated by medical findings, and supported by her birth certificate confirming her age as under 12 years.
The Court clarified that the defence counsel’s choice not to cross-examine the prosecutrix did not invalidate the trial. It further dismissed objections regarding the CFSL report, noting that it aligned with other evidence on record. The judges observed that recalling a child witness after two courts had already confirmed guilt would erode the credibility of the system and risk secondary victimisation.
In a strongly worded statement, the Court said granting such relief would amount to “a judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood” and a betrayal of the constitutional promise to protect children. It reiterated that in POCSO cases, especially involving familial breach of trust, courts must prioritize the dignity and protection of the survivor over the convenience of the accused.
Concluding the case, the Court not only upheld the conviction but also directed the State of Arunachal Pradesh to pay ₹10.5 lakh compensation to the victim, to be kept in a fixed deposit under the supervision of the State Legal Services Authority. The bench emphasized that justice must extend beyond conviction to include restitution, reaffirming the judiciary’s duty to deliver justice that is “substantive, compassionate, and complete.”
