In a significant ruling aimed at protecting survivors of heinous crimes, the Calcutta High Court has set aside a trial court order that sought to recall a minor trafficking victim for a second round of cross-examination. The court emphasized that survivors cannot be summoned repeatedly merely because the defense counsel wishes to ask more questions.
The Case: A Minor Trafficked and Rescued
The case pertains to a girl, who was a minor at the time, allegedly trafficked on January 29, 2023. Her mother filed a missing complaint the very next day, leading to the registration of a case in South 24 Parganas district. Upon her recovery, the survivor stated she had been sold to a hotelier in Bengal for commercial sexual exploitation, as detailed by her advocate, Nandini Chatterjee.
Following the investigation, six individuals were arrested and charged under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Charges were formally framed on December 8, 2023, marking the commencement of the trial.
The Controversial Recall Application
The survivor deposed during the trial on February 27, 2024, and was cross-examined on March 15. However, five months later, on August 13, the lawyer for one of the accused filed an application to recall her for further cross-examination.
The defense counsel argued before the trial court that a junior advocate had failed to ask vital questions, and thus the accused's "valuable right" to a defense was compromised. The Kakdwip POCSO court allowed this application, permitting the victim to be recalled.
High Court's Decisive Intervention
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das of the Calcutta High Court intervened, invoking the court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to scrap the trial court's order. The judge observed that the lower court had "passed the order without assigning any reason".
The High Court also took note of the fact that the accused had been in custody for a long period and that his bail applications had been repeatedly refused. The ruling underscores that procedural provisions, like Section 311 of the CrPC (recalling witnesses), must be used to serve the ends of justice and not to cause undue hardship to survivors.
A Win for Survivor Rights and Legal Precedent
Advocate Nandini Chatterjee, representing the survivor, hailed the judgment. She argued that in sensitive cases involving heinous crimes, repeatedly summoning survivors for cross-examination amounts to harassment and re-traumatization. "This is a win for the voiceless," she stated, while also revealing that one of the co-accused in the case is currently out on bail citing health grounds.
The Calcutta High Court's decision sets a crucial precedent, balancing the rights of the accused with the imperative to protect vulnerable witnesses, especially survivors of trafficking and sexual offences, from prolonged judicial ordeal.
