Trial Courts And Child Welfare Committees Must Ensure Vulnerable Child Victims Avail Statutory Safeguards In POCSO Cases: Delhi High Court

The Court underscored that protective mechanisms for child victims cannot remain limited to formal compliance, and that institutional stakeholders must proactively ensure their effective implementation, particularly in cases involving heightened vulnerability.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, during the course of which it found it necessary to assess the existing measures for safeguarding vulnerable victims, addressing systemic gaps in the protection of child victims during investigation and trial.

A Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan, while appreciating the guidelines already in place to ensure protection of victims against additional harassment and pressure borne as a result of reporting of such offences, observed that “it is imperative that the learned Trial Courts and the Child Welfare Committees, as well as any appointed support persons, exercise due care that the victim is able to avail all such safeguards”.

Advocate Harsh Prabhakar (DHCLSC) appeared for the appellant. The respondents were represented by Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP.

Background

The matter arose from a criminal appeal under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, in which the Delhi High Court was called upon to examine the evidentiary record and the manner in which the trial had proceeded.

Upon deciding the appeal on merits, the Court found it necessary to address broader systemic concerns relating to the protection of vulnerable child victims during investigation and trial.

Observing that such safeguards are often treated as one-time or formal compliances, the Court appended a “Necessary Addendum – Measures for Safeguarding Vulnerable Victims” to reiterate the obligations of institutional stakeholders and to stress the need for active judicial oversight.

Court’s Observation

After dealing with the facts of the case, the Delhi High Court took note of the vulnerability of child victims who remain defenceless against pressure exerted by family members and are particularly susceptible to influence. The Court recorded that it was “particularly moved” by the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, which reflected that the child was burdened by the financial reality of a father figure being prosecuted.

The Court observed that “nothing can justify a child being faced with the burden of shielding their perpetrator” and emphasised that in cases of sexual assault against minors, the State incurs an additional responsibility to treat the victim as a child in need of care and protection.

Referring to Section 19(5) of the POCSO Act, the Court noted that the legislature has specifically obligated the Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police to refer child victims to shelter homes and to make immediate protective arrangements. These statutory duties, the Court observed, are intended to ensure that victims are insulated from further harm after reporting the offence.

The Court also relied on Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, which mandates that the Child Welfare Committee must determine within three days whether the child needs to be removed from the custody of the family or shared household. The Rule specifically recognises the history of family violence as a relevant consideration while making such a determination.

The High Court noted that Rule 4 further provides for the appointment of a support person, with the consent of the child and the parent or guardian, to assist the victim throughout the process of investigation and trial. The role of the support person, the Court observed, is to ensure that the child is not left to navigate the criminal process unaided.

The Court then examined the scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Juvenile Justice Model Rules. It noted that the Child Welfare Committee is empowered to place a child in safe custody with a fit person, fit facility, or children’s home, depending on the circumstances of the case.

The Court further observed that the JJ Rules permit the Legal Services Authority to provide a support person or para-legal volunteer for pre-trial counselling, with a view to familiarising the child with the court environment. It was also noted that while parents or guardians ordinarily accompany the child during trial, in cases of conflict of interest, another trusted or fit person, institutional representative, or psychologist may accompany the child.

Emphasis was placed on the statutory requirement that no child should be coerced or persuaded to return to the family if the child expresses unwillingness to do so, and that the Child Welfare Committee must meaningfully interact with the child before taking such a decision.

The High Court also took note of the model guidelines framed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights in 2024 pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court. These guidelines, the Court observed, impose a duty on support persons to protect the child from external pressure, assess threats or coercion, conduct regular home visits, and submit monthly reports on the child’s well-being.

The Court further noted that the guidelines specifically require support persons, in cases of incest, to assist the child and the family in finding alternate residences so that the victim is not compelled to continue residing in an unsafe environment.

While acknowledging that a protective framework has been put in place, the Court cautioned that “merely because a victim turns hostile, she ought not lose protection of the State”. On the contrary, such hostility may itself indicate pressure or harassment, warranting heightened protective intervention.

The High Court emphasised that these safeguards would be of little benefit if they remained confined to paper and were not implemented on the ground. It concluded that “Courts can play a crucial role to limit such a possibility by proactively ensuring that the guidelines are being complied with and the child has adequate support, especially where the child turns hostile subsequently in cases of incest and remains in custody of the family”.

Conclusion

In the case at hand, the Court examined the evidence on record, including medical and forensic material, as well as the conduct of witnesses during trial.

While affirming the conviction on merits, the Court took note of the fact that the victim and certain family members had recanted their earlier statements during trial. The Court observed that such conduct, particularly in cases involving vulnerable child victims, may stem from familial, social, or economic pressures rather than from falsity in the original allegations.

Consequently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

Cause Title: Jahid v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11807)

Appearances

Appellant: Harsh Prabhakar (DHCLSC), with Advocates

Respondents: Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP, Faraz Maqbool (DHCLSC), Anu Narula, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment