Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria has dismissed the appeal of a man convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for the rape of an 11-year-old girl, upholding the 20-year sentence affirmed by the Gauhati High Court. Rejecting his plea to recall the child victim for cross-examination, the Court stressed that such relief would re-traumatize survivors of child abuse and erode public confidence in justice. It further directed the State of Arunachal Pradesh to pay Rs.10.5 lakh compensation to the victim, secured in a fixed deposit.

The appellant, Arjun Sonar, was tried before the Special Judge, POCSO, East Sessions Division, Tezu, on allegations of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon his niece, then aged about 11 years. He was convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. His conviction was later affirmed by the Gauhati High Court at Itanagar through a reasoned judgment delivered in 2024.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Touching Private Parts of Minor Not Rape | Offence Is Aggravated Sexual Assault Under POCSO and Outraging Modesty Under Section 354 IPC

In proceedings before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that he had been denied effective legal assistance because his defence counsel had not cross-examined the prosecutrix. He sought permission for recalling her to the stand to test her testimony afresh. He also questioned the reliance placed on the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) report, alleging that its delayed filing weakened the prosecution’s case.

The State of Arunachal Pradesh opposed the appeal and maintained that the conviction was supported by cogent evidence. The prosecution relied upon the detailed statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was consistent with her testimony in court, and corroborated by contemporaneous medical findings confirming recent forcible sexual intercourse.

The Court observed that the prosecutrix, aged 11 years, “made a detailed and coherent statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 narrating the incident without any exaggeration or inconsistence.” It recorded that she “reiterated her statement recorded by I.O. before the trial court in her evidence” and that her testimony “is corroborated by contemporaneous medical evidence dated 24.11.2018 which confirms signs of recent forcible sexual intercourse.” Her age, the Court stated, “is established through her birth certificate and places her age unambiguously below 12 years on the date of the incident.”

The Bench noted that “the fact that the defence counsel chose not to cross-examine the prosecutrix cannot by itself vitiate the proceedings, especially when the accused was present and made no protest application either to cross-examine the prosecutrix or immediately on the next date of hearing seeking for recall of the witness.” It found “nothing on record to show that the trial was unfair and caused miscarriage of justice.” On the forensic report, it stated, “the finding of the report does not exonerate the appellant or contradict the consistent oral and medical evidence.”

The Court observed that “in serious offence under the POCSO Act, particularly those involving familial betrayal of trust, relief cannot be granted as a matter of routine when two courts have concurrently found guilt and the findings are not shown to be perverse interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is neither warranted nor justified.”

It further stated, “the legal process cannot become a means to perpetuate injustice under the guise of a procedural lacunas. In matters involving sexual violence against children, the paramount consideration is not the convenience of the accused but the integrity of the victim’s testimony, the finality of lawful findings, and the need to prevent secondary victimization.”

The Bench also recorded, “Courts have a duty to ensure that survivors of child abuse are not re-traumatized by the very justice system they turn for protection. Allowing such technical plea being raised in cases of such gravity, especially when guilt has been established after full fledged trial and confirmed in appeal, risks undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.” It concluded, “to grant relief in case of this nature after the guilt has been proved and affirmed, would not merely undermine the majesty of the law, it would amount to betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child in this country. It would be in the considered view of this Court, a judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches her child to believe in justice.”

The bench concluded: “In view of the aforestated discussion, we find no infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

“Any attempt to recall the victim for re-examination, must be treated with extreme caution. In the absence of compelling legal necessity, it cannot be allowed. Such attempts must be discouraged, wherever necessary it should be nipped at the bud especially when they threaten to re-traumatize the victim.”

“The plea to contrary therefore is rejected. Based on a technical objection unworthy of consideration or granting any relief on the basis of such submission is not warranted in the instant case.”

“Having held that the guilt of the accused has been proved by both the courts, we notice with anguish that no compensation has been granted by the Trial Court or the High Court to the victim girl. Having regard to the age of the victim at the time of the offence, the nature of the abuse she has been visited with and the constitutional obligation to provide meaningful redress, we direct that a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- (Ten lakhs and fifty thousand only) be paid to the victim as compensation by the State of Arunachal Pradesh.”

Also Read: Gujarat High Court | ‘Absolutely Irresponsible’: FIR Against Advocate For Disclosing POCSO Victim’s Identity To Media Cannot Be Quashed

“The sum ordered hereinabove to be paid to her be kept in a Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of 5 years in the name of the victim and she would be entitled to withdraw the quarterly interest. It is needless to state that on maturity of the Fixed Deposit, the proceeds thereof shall be transferred to her account and this process shall be monitored by the Member Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.”

“Justice must not be limited to conviction, it must, where the law so permits, include restitution. In awarding the aforesaid compensation, we reaffirm the constitutional commitment to protect the rights and dignity of child survivors, and to ensure that the justice delivered is substantive, compassionate and complete.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR; Mr. Rajasmit Mondal, Adv.; Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv.; Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv.

Case Title: Arjun Sonar v. State of Arunachal Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. /2025 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 34304/2025]
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice N.V. Anjaria