Lawyers must show humanity: Supreme Court criticises cross-examination of minor POCSO victim

The Supreme Court on Friday took strong exception to the manner in which a 4-year-old sexual assault victim was cross-examined before the trial court by defence lawyers [Kesarinandan Sabhapati Upadhyay v. State of Maharashtra and Another].

After noting that the minor victim was put through around 150 questions during cross-examination, a Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih urged lawyers to be more reasonable and show "humanity" in such cases.

"Members of bar must have some humanity within them. The little 4-year-old girl on dock was asked around 150 questions in cross. Members of bar must have some humility. 80 to 90% are irrelevant questions. You may have the good case on merits but there has to some human reasonability," a visibly upset Justice Oka told the convict's counsel.

The Court was hearing an appeal preferred by the convict, a teacher, challenging an August 2021 decision of the Bombay High Court which had upheld his conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of his 4-year-old student.

He was convicted for offences under Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The incident happened in 2014 when the grandmother of the child picked her up from school.

She then noticed that the child's hair was disheveled and her clothes were in disarray. On being asked, the victim told that her teacher had taken her to toilet and inserted his penis in her private parts, navel and mouth and also licked her private parts.

The doctor's report revealed that the victim was subjected to sexual assault. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the teacher under the POCSO Act.

The trial court convicted the teacher and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On appeal, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision after noting that the evidence of the child, her mother and grandmother was consistent and trustworthy and established the identity and guilt of the teacher.

Aggrieved, the teacher moved the Supreme Court.

During the hearing today, the Court questioned the manner in which cross-examination was conducted.

While issuing notice on the teacher's appeal, the Court called for a humane approach by lawyers while conducting cross-examination in such cases.