{"id":349360,"date":"2025-06-02T15:30:50","date_gmt":"2025-06-02T10:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=349360"},"modified":"2025-06-06T16:06:55","modified_gmt":"2025-06-06T10:36:55","slug":"victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Victim attaining majority during trial not entitled to \u201cChild-Specific\u201d safeguards under Section 33(2) of POCSO Act: Rajasthan High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Rajasthan High Court:<\/span> In separate criminal miscellaneous petitions involving common question of law as to \u2018whether the procedural safeguard under Section 33(2)<\/a> of the POCSO Act, 2012<\/a>, which requires that questions during examination be routed through the Special Court, continues to apply once the victim attains the age of majority during the pendency of trial,\u2019<\/span> a single-judge bench of Farjand Ali, J.<\/span>, quashed the orders passed by the Special Courts in all three petitions and held that \u201cthe procedural mechanisms of Section 33(2) must be confined to those who continue to remain children at the time of their testimony. Once that status changes, so must the procedure.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/h3>\n

The core issue arose in three separate criminal miscellaneous petitions are \u2014<\/p>\n

In S.B. Criminal Misc. Pet. No. 2282\/2025, the petitioner challenged the trial court\u2019s rejection of his application seeking exemption from the procedural safeguard under Section 33(2)<\/a> of the POCSO Act<\/a>. The complainant had lodged an FIR and stated that his 16-year-old daughter who had gone missing was later found and claimed that she was sexually assaulted by the petitioner and others. Though the victim was a minor at the time of the offence, she attained majority during the trial.<\/p>\n

In S.B. Criminal Misc. Pet. No. 6206\/2024 and 7786\/2024, similar issues arose where the victim turned 18 before trial testimony. The petitioner was denied permission for direct cross-examination and later denied adjournment for cross-examination.<\/p>\n

Common Question of Law<\/p>\n

Whether the procedural safeguard under Section 33(2)<\/a> of the POCSO Act, 2012<\/a>, which requires that questions during examination be routed through the Special Court, continues to apply once the victim attains the age of majority during the pendency of trial?<\/p>\n

Petitioners\u2019 Contentions<\/h3>\n

The petitioners contended that the procedural safeguards under Section 33(2)<\/a> of the POCSO Act<\/a> are applicable only while the person qualifies as a \u201cchild\u201d under Section 2(d), i.e., below 18 years of age and once the prosecutrix attains majority, the rationale behind shielding her from direct cross-examination ceases, and continued application of such procedures violates the accused\u2019s right to a fair trial under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The petitioner cited Eera v. State<\/span>, (2017) 15 SCC 133, where it was emphasized that \u201cchild\u201d must be interpreted strictly in the biological sense, not based on mental or emotional maturity. It was contended that the mandatory intermediation of the Court for cross-examination post-majority results in \u201cprocedural asymmetry\u201d in a trial already burdened with the presumption of guilt under Section 29<\/a> of the POCSO Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

State\u2019s Contentions<\/h3>\n

However, the State argued for continuation of protection and stated that the object of Section 33(2) is to minimize the trauma to victims of sexual offences and to shield them from adversarial cross-examination regardless of whether they have crossed the age of majority. It was contended that psychological trauma does not disappear on attaining 18 years, and victims who were minors at the time of the offence should continue to receive such protections to prevent re-victimization. It was further argued that a purposive interpretation of the POCSO Act is necessary and advocated that \u201cthe protection should continue through all stages of judicial process\u201d<\/span> if the victim was a child at the time of offence.<\/p>\n

Court\u2019s Observation<\/h3>\n

Constitutional and Jurisprudential Backdrop<\/p>\n

The Court extensively examined the POCSO Act\u2019s purpose and described it as a \u201csui generis legislative instrument crafted to address the acute vulnerability of children\u201d<\/span>, which has its root in Article 15(3)<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> and India\u2019s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Court noted that the POCSO Act aims not only to penalise offences but to ensure that children are not further traumatized by the justice process.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Act\u2019s preambular objectives and structural provisions\u2014including the establishment of child-sensitive Special Courts\u2014underscore the legislature\u2019s intention to secure not only conviction for child-related sexual offences but also to ensure that the criminal justice process itself does not inflict secondary trauma upon child victims. It is this dual focus on accountability and protection that renders the POCSO framework both remedial and progressive in character.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Court recognised that the Act\u2019s procedural regime is remedial and protective in nature, designed to establish a child-sensitive legal framework. However, the Court also emphasised that the POCSO Act is not an ordinary penal statute, but its procedural privileges cannot override the fair trial rights of the accused indefinitely.<\/p>\n

Interpretation of Section 33(2) \u2014 Age-Bound Procedural Safeguard<\/p>\n

The Court recognised the dual objectives of the POCSO Act, i.e., protection of children and establishment of child-friendly procedures. However, it clarified that procedural safeguards like those under Section 33(2) are not absolute and must be interpreted strictly within the contours of the statutory text.<\/p>\n

Referring to the statutory language, the Court noted that \u201cfrom a plain reading of Section 33(2), it is evident that the provision explicitly refers to \u2018questions to be put to the child,\u2019 thereby reinforcing the requirement to consider the definition of \u2018child\u2019 as per Section 2(d) of the Act.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court strongly relied on the doctrine that \u201cprudence and age are juridically interconnected,\u201d<\/span> and once the statutory threshold of eighteen years is crossed, the basis for special procedural protection evaporates.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe calibration of criminal liability in such contexts hinges not merely on biological age but also on psychological capacity, yet only within clearly demarcated statutory limits. Hence, jurisprudential coherence demands that the attainment of biological majority must also serve as a cut-off point for child-specific procedural privileges, unless a statute explicitly provides otherwise.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Court held that \u201cSection 33, being primarily aimed at shielding the vulnerabilities of childhood, loses its functional justification once those vulnerabilities cease to exist with the passage into adulthood.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Victim Protection v. Fair Trial Rights<\/p>\n

The Court acknowledged the potential trauma victims may endure even after attaining majority; however, it firmly held that the right of the accused to fair and effective cross-examination under Article 21 is paramount, especially in light of the reverse burden of proof<\/span> under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.<\/p>\n

The Court rejected the idea of continuing protection post-majority on equitable or humanitarian grounds and held that it would amount to \u201cjudicial legislation.\u201d The Court emphasised that \u201cthe procedural safeguard under Section 33(2)… is procedural in nature and not intrinsic to the ascertainment of guilt or innocence.\u201d<\/span> The Court further asserted that continuing such protection would infringe on the right to a fair trial,<\/p>\n

\u201cRequiring the accused to pre-disclose their line of cross-examination through a Special Court, in such circumstances, gives an unfair strategic advantage to a now-prudent witness who may adapt their responses accordingly, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair defence.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Court stated that the requirement of questions to be routed through the Court even when the witness is now an adult result in \u201cprocedural asymmetry\u201d<\/span> and \u201ccurated, cautious replies\u201d<\/span>, thereby weakening the defence\u2019s ability to elicit spontaneous truth.<\/p>\n

\u201cCurtailing or proceduralizing the right of cros-sexamination by invoking Section 33(2) protections for a nowadult witness\u2014who no longer retains the psychological or cognitive vulnerabilities of a child\u2014constitutes a grave procedural asymmetry. It not only impairs the effectiveness of the defence but also risks violating the principle of audi alteram partem, thereby encroaching upon the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Court\u2019s Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court held that \u2014<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The procedural safeguard under Section 33(2)<\/a> of the POCSO Act<\/a> ceases to apply once the victim attains majority, even if the offence was committed when the victim was a child.<\/li>\n
  2. \n

    The right of the accused to a fair and effective cross-examination, especially under the reverse burden of proof regime in Section 29, must be protected.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Court quashed the orders passed by the Special Courts in all three petitions and remanded back the matters to the concerned trial courts with directions to permit direct cross-examination of the prosecutrix, subject to regular evidentiary norms. The Court also vacated the stay on the trial proceedings which was imposed earlier.<\/p>\n

    [Jasaram Pander<\/span> v. State of Rajasthan<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 2508<\/a>, Decided on 27-05-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    \n

    Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

    Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocvate with Mr. Abhishek Purohit, Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas (Shirmali), Mr. Divik Mathur, Mr. Gajendra Singh Butati, Mr. Vichitra Singh, Shri Krishan Chaudhary, Mr. Tananjay Pramar, Mr. B.S. Mertia, Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi, Mr. Naresh Rajpurohit, Mr. Ramprakash Dudi, Mr. Karmendra Singh, Mr. Ankur Mathur and Mr. Rajak Khan Haider, Counsel for the Petitioners<\/p>\n

    Mr. Deepak Chaudhary, AAG, Mr. N.K. Gurjar, AAG, Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A., Mr. Yuvraj Sonal, Mr. Vishal Sharma, Ms. Advaita Sharma, Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Mrinal Khatri, Ms. Deepti Sharma and Ms. Sapna Vaishnav, Counsel for the Respondent<\/p>\n

    Buy Constitution of India \u00a0HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n

    Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 \u00a0 HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"protection<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    “The law… does not permit a retrospective resurrection of childhood once the individual steps into legal adulthood; and to permit otherwise would be to dilute the doctrinal rigour of age-based legal classifications and introduce subjectivity into a domain that demands exactitude.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":314824,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[13681,19601,2573,82865,9121,14101,71526,67351,23524,82863,2575,82864,82866,38070,82867,82862],"class_list":["post-349360","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-article-21","tag-biological-age","tag-child_witness","tag-child-specific-protection","tag-cross-examination","tag-fair-trial","tag-judicial-interpretation","tag-justice-farjand-ali","tag-pocso-act","tag-procedural-safeguards","tag-Rajasthan_High_Court","tag-reverse-burden","tag-right-to-defence","tag-right-to-fair-trial","tag-section-33-of-pocso-act","tag-victim-attains-majority"],"yoast_head":"\nRajasthan HC Judgment on Section 33(2) POCSO Act| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court clarifies Section 33 of POCSO Act procedures for child victims during trial and testimony.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Victim attaining majority during trial not entitled to \u201cChild-Specific\u201d safeguards under Section 33(2) of POCSO Act: Rajasthan High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court held that cictim attaining majority during trial not entitled to \u201cChild-Specific\u201d safeguards under Section 33(2) of POCSO Act.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-02T10:00:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-06T10:36:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Victim attaining majority during trial not entitled to \u201cChild-Specific\u201d safeguards under Section 33(2) of POCSO Act: Rajasthan High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/\",\"name\":\"Rajasthan HC Judgment on Section 33(2) POCSO Act| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-02T10:00:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-06T10:36:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Rajasthan High Court clarifies Section 33 of POCSO Act procedures for child victims during trial and testimony.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Rajasthan High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Victim attaining majority during trial not entitled to \u201cChild-Specific\u201d safeguards under Section 33(2) of POCSO Act: Rajasthan High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajasthan HC Judgment on Section 33(2) POCSO Act| SCC Times","description":"Rajasthan High Court clarifies Section 33 of POCSO Act procedures for child victims during trial and testimony.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Victim attaining majority during trial not entitled to \u201cChild-Specific\u201d safeguards under Section 33(2) of POCSO Act: Rajasthan High Court","og_description":"Rajasthan High Court held that cictim attaining majority during trial not entitled to \u201cChild-Specific\u201d safeguards under Section 33(2) of POCSO Act.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-06-02T10:00:50+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-06T10:36:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Victim attaining majority during trial not entitled to \u201cChild-Specific\u201d safeguards under Section 33(2) of POCSO Act: Rajasthan High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/","name":"Rajasthan HC Judgment on Section 33(2) POCSO Act| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-06-02T10:00:50+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-06T10:36:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Rajasthan High Court clarifies Section 33 of POCSO Act procedures for child victims during trial and testimony.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Rajasthan High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/02\/victim-attaining-majority-during-trial-not-entitled-to-child-specific-safeguards-under-section-332-of-pocso-act-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Victim attaining majority during trial not entitled to \u201cChild-Specific\u201d safeguards under Section 33(2) of POCSO Act: Rajasthan High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":268987,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/24\/rigour-under-s-335-pocso-act-gets-diluted-once-the-child-attains-majority-kar-hc-allowed-cross-examination-under-s-311-crpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":349360,"position":0},"title":"Rigour under S. 33(5) POCSO Act gets diluted once the child attains majority; Kar HC allowed cross-examination under S. 311 CrPC","author":"Editor","date":"June 24, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: M Nagaprasanna, J. allowed the petition filed seeking further cross examination of the child victim as the victim has now attained 18 years of age and the rigour given under S. 33(5) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (\u2018POCSO Act' ) is not applicable now.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Karnataka High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":378638,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/17\/del-hc-pocso-repeated-summoning-of-minor-victims-discouraged\/","url_meta":{"origin":349360,"position":1},"title":"Delhi HC discourages repeated summoning of minor victims in POCSO trials; Reiterates safeguards for \u201cvulnerable witnesses\u201d","author":"Ritu","date":"March 17, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cBoth the statutory framework under the POCSO Act and the Guidelines framed by this Court recognise that the use of technology and protective arrangements is an important tool to ensure that the testimony of vulnerable witnesses is recorded in a manner that is both \u2014 fair to the accused and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"repeated summoning of minor victims","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/repeated-summoning-of-minor-victims.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/repeated-summoning-of-minor-victims.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/repeated-summoning-of-minor-victims.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/repeated-summoning-of-minor-victims.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":205636,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/24\/direction-requiring-advance-submission-of-cross-examination-questionnaire-under-the-pocso-act-procedurally-improper-as-it-defeats-the-accuseds-right-to-fair-trial\/","url_meta":{"origin":349360,"position":2},"title":"Direction requiring advance submission of cross-examination questionnaire under the POCSO Act procedurally improper as it defeats the accused\u2019s right to fair trial","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 24, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sunil Thomas, J. set aside the order of Sessions Judge requiring advance submission of questions to be put to witness in cross-examination holding the same to be improper. The instant petition was preferred by an accused facing trial for offences punishable\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":195184,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/pocso-special-courts-must-devise-methods-to-protect-identity-of-child-abuse-victim-during-investigation-and-trial\/","url_meta":{"origin":349360,"position":3},"title":"POCSO Special Courts must devise methods to protect identity of child abuse victim during investigation and trial","author":"Saba","date":"April 12, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Sikkim High Court: While deciding the present appeal wherein the appellant convicted under the POCSO Act, prayed before the Court for his acquittal, the Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai, J., dismissed the appeal and urged that the Police, the media and especially the POCSO Special Courts to devise methods to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":346913,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/01\/madras-hc-pocso-marriage-does-not-erase-crime\/","url_meta":{"origin":349360,"position":4},"title":"Offence under POCSO Act not against individual but against society; Subsequent marriage between accused and victim does not erase the crime: Madras HC","author":"Apoorva","date":"May 1, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cOffence under the POCSO Act is not against individual and it is against the Society. Hence, the subsequent marriage between the convict and the victim will not take away the offence committed by the convict when the victim girl was a child. If the defence of subsequent marriage or the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":373764,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/27\/all-hc-rejects-application-to-recall-witness-after-six-years-from-cross-examination-in-pocso-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":349360,"position":5},"title":"Fair Trial Protects Interests of Accused, Victim and Society: Allahabad HC rejects application to recall witness after six years from cross-examination in POCSO case","author":"Shriya Singh","date":"January 27, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"A witness who has already been examined and cross-examined, cannot be recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he has already given before the trial court and no opportunity at a later stage can be given to him to completely efface the evidence already given by him under oath.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"recall of witness in POCSO case","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/recall-of-witness-in-POCSO-case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/recall-of-witness-in-POCSO-case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/recall-of-witness-in-POCSO-case.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/recall-of-witness-in-POCSO-case.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349360","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=349360"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349360\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314824"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=349360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=349360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=349360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}