Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by 3 minor victims seeking setting aside of bailable warrants issued against one of the child witnesses and for issuance of directions to trial courts to ensure strict compliance with safeguards meant for child victims under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and judicial guidelines relating to vulnerable witnesses. The petition also sought directions for adoption of procedures such as video conferencing and avoidance of repeated summoning of minor victims during trial. A Single Bench of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma,* J., reiterated the following safeguards for “vulnerable witnesses”:
-
Child victims and victims of sexual offences are “vulnerable witnesses” requiring a sensitive and protective approach during investigation and trial.
-
The POCSO Act mandates adoption of child-friendly procedures so that child victims should not be repeatedly summoned and the trial process does not result in re-victimisation or further trauma.
-
Courts may use video-conferencing and other protective measures to minimise exposure with the accused and reduce the psychological stress associated with court proceedings.
-
During bail hearings, once the victim’s views or objections are recorded, her repeated presence should not be insisted upon.
-
Existing statutory provisions, Supreme Court directions and High Court guidelines must be followed strictly by all trial courts.
Factual Matrix
The instant matter arose from a complaint lodged on 6 August 2022 by the father of Petitioner 1 along with relatives of the other petitioners, reporting that 3 minor girls had gone missing. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered under Section 363, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
On 8 August 2022, the three girls were traced at P.S. Karol Bagh and brought back to Defence Colony, where their statements under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) were recorded. In these statements, the minors disclosed that they had been repeatedly sexually abused, assaulted and threatened by the accused persons over a period of two days. Consequently, offences under Sections 342, 328, 366-A, 370, 376, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 6, POCSO Act were added to the FIR. Their statements under Section 164 CrPC were also recorded, wherein all three victims narrated incidents of sexual assault and threats, and their versions broadly corroborated each other.
During trial proceedings, the trial court issued bailable warrants dated 22 April 2025 against Petitioner 1, who was a minor victim and prosecution witness, after her exemption request was rejected.
The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the impugned order and also sought broader directions to prevent repeated summoning of child victims and to ensure adherence to the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court and High Court in earlier cases. The High Court had already set aside the bailable warrants by order dated 28 May 2025, but the petition continued with respect to the other prayers seeking guidelines.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Court observed that the concept of a “vulnerable witness” has evolved through judicial decisions recognising that certain witnesses, particularly victims of sexual offences and children, required special procedural protection while participating in the court proceedings so as to not cause intimidation, embarrassment or psychological distress to them.
Vulnerable witnesses in the criminal justice system
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, emphasised that trials of rape cases must ordinarily be conducted in camera in terms of Section 327 CrPC. The Supreme Court in Sakshi v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518, issued certain directions to ensure a child-friendly procedure during trial, including:
-
“appropriate arrangements such as screens may be used so that the victim or vulnerable witness does not have to directly face the accused while giving evidence;
-
questions in cross-examination may, where necessary, be given in writing and put to the witness by the presiding judge in appropriate language; and
-
sufficient breaks should be allowed to the victim while recording testimony.”
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu, (2018) 11 SCC 163, endorsed the need for establishing special centres for examination of vulnerable witnesses and in Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 163, expanded the scope of the term “vulnerable witness” and held that “it is not confined to children alone but may include victims of sexual offences, persons suffering from mental illness, individuals with disabilities, witnesses facing threat perception under the Witness Protection Scheme, and any other witness who may be considered vulnerable by the court.” The Supreme Court also emphasised on the establishment of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres to create a barrier-free environment for recording testimony.
The Court also noted that this Court (Delhi High Court) had framed Guidelines for Recording Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses, 2024, to streamline and strengthen the procedure for recording the testimony of such witnesses.
Safeguards under the POCSO Act
The Court referred to Sections 33(5), 35 and 36, POCSO Act, which requires that a child should not be called repeatedly to testify, evidence should be recorded within a fixed time frame, and the child should not be exposed to the accused while giving testimony. It noted that these provisions reflect the legislative intent that trials involving child victims must proceed expeditiously and, in a child-friendly manner.
The Court noted that Supreme Court in Madhab Chandra Pradhan v. State of Odisha1, reiterated that the Section 33(5), POCSO Act casts a duty on the Special Court to ensure that a child is not repeatedly called to testify before the court, thereby ensuring that a child who had already undergone the trauma of sexual assault was not compelled to repeatedly narrate the same incident during the trial.
The Court noted that timelines prescribed under Section 35, POCSO Act clearly indicate that the recording of the child’s evidence must be treated as a time-bound and priority exercise. The Court stated that although courts have power under Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses, but such power must be exercised with caution and in harmony with Section 33(5), POCSO Act, so that the child is not subjected to unnecessary appearances.
The Court opined that whenever the child victim is summoned for recording of testimony, the Special Court should fix specific dates and ensure necessary arrangements are in place in order to conduct the examination-in-chief and cross-examination without unnecessary adjournments.
Use of video-conferencing for vulnerable witnesses
The Court noted that the “Guidelines of the High Court of Delhi for Recording of Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses, 2024” as framed by this Court in pursuant to the directions issued in Smruti Tukaram Badade (supra), permitted the recording of testimony through live-link or video-conferencing, use of screens, mirrors, or other testimonial aids to protect the witness from intimidation. The Guidelines further provided for certain pre-trial measures intended to reduce anxiety and trauma for vulnerable witnesses such as allowing such witnesses to undertake a pre-trial visit to the court premises along with a support person/para-legal volunteer, so as to familiarise themselves with the courtroom environment, understand the basic court procedure, and become aware of the protective measures available to them. Such mechanisms ensure fairness to the accused while reducing trauma to the victim.
The Court further noted that Section 36, POCSO Act also permits the use of video-conferencing, single visibility mirrors, curtains or other suitable devices so that the child can depose without being directly confronted with the accused.
The Court asserted that technological means can be used without prejudice to the accused and that courts should adopt such measures whenever necessary, particularly where repeated appearances cause distress to the victim. However, the Court declined to issue new guidelines, observing that sufficient directions already exist in statutory provisions, Supreme Court judgments and High Court guidelines.
Presence of victim during bail hearings
The Court examined the directions issued in XXXX v. State, (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 16, and noted that the directions recognised that although the victim has a right to be heard at the stage of bail, her repeated appearance should not be insisted upon once her views are recorded. Requiring the victim to attend bail hearings on multiple dates may cause psychological harm and defeat the purpose of protective safeguards. The directions further clarify that the victim may be represented through counsel, parent/guardian, support person, or the concerned Legal Services Authority, and that appropriate arrangements such as virtual appearance or in-camera interaction may be adopted so as to minimise the interface between the victim and the accused.
In the present case, the Court noted that the victims had been called on several occasions only for bail hearings, which was not in consonance with the spirit of earlier directions issued in XXXX (supra). The Court opined that after the victim’s objections are recorded, further hearings could be contested on her behalf by her counsel or authorised representative as “requiring the victim to remain present on multiple dates of hearing of a bail application may result in unnecessary distress and may defeat the very purpose of the safeguards intended to minimise repeated exposure of the victim to the court process during such proceedings.”
Court’s Decision
The Court disposed of the petition with the following conclusions:
-
Child victims and victims of sexual offences are “vulnerable witnesses” requiring a sensitive and protective approach during investigation and trial.
-
The POCSO Act mandates adoption of child-friendly procedures so that child victims should not be repeatedly summoned and the trial process does not result in re-victimisation or further trauma.
-
Courts may use video-conferencing and other protective measures to minimise exposure with the accused and reduce the psychological stress associated with court proceedings.
-
During bail hearings, once the victim’s views or objections are recorded, her repeated presence should not be insisted upon.
-
Existing statutory provisions, Supreme Court directions and High Court guidelines must be followed strictly by all trial courts.
The Court directed that the judgment be circulated to all trial courts and Special Courts in Delhi for guidance and compliance.
[Minor Child K v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. 3880/2025 & CRL.M.A. 16947/2025, decided on 11-3-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Nitin Saluja, Ms Nimisha Menon, Ms Pranya Madan and Ms Ankita Talukdar, Advs., Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State along with SI Sonia, Counsel for the Respondent
Ms. Prachi Dubey, Amicus Curiae
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. SLP (Crl.) No. 10082 of 2024, decided on 5-8-2024.