Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions And Statutory Protections
Introduction
Child sexual abuse is a grave violation of a child’s rights and dignity, involving exploitation, molestation, or sexual assault of a minor. Legal systems globally have enacted strict statutory protections to prevent abuse, protect victims, and prosecute offenders.
Statutory Protections
Key legislative provisions often include:
Definition of child sexual abuse and offenses (penetrative/non-penetrative assault).
Mandatory reporting and investigation procedures.
Special courts and procedures for handling child abuse cases (e.g., fast-track courts).
Protection of victim identity and privacy.
Provision of medical, psychological support to victims.
Punishments including stringent imprisonment and fines.
Provisions for child-friendly trial mechanisms and legal aid.
Example (India):
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012: Comprehensive law to protect children from sexual offenses and ensure child-friendly procedures.
Section 375 IPC: Defines rape, including child rape.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Challenges in Prosecution
Victim’s age and trauma complicate evidence collection.
Delay in reporting and investigation.
Societal stigma and fear.
Need for sensitive judicial handling.
Requirement of corroborative evidence balanced with child’s testimony.
Detailed Case Laws
**Case 1: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) AIR 1393 (SC)
Facts:
The accused was charged with raping a minor girl.
The trial court acquitted due to lack of corroboration.
Issue:
Whether the testimony of a child victim needs corroboration for conviction.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that if the testimony of a child victim is credible and trustworthy, corroboration is not necessary.
The Court emphasized child testimony should be carefully evaluated with sensitivity.
Significance:
Affirmed that child victim’s statement is substantive evidence.
Avoids unnecessary re-traumatization by demanding corroboration.
**Case 2: Mohd. Akhlaq v. State of Haryana (2018) SCC Online SC 983
Facts:
Accused was convicted under the POCSO Act for sexual assault on a minor.
Issue:
Applicability of POCSO Act and interpretation of evidence.
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld conviction, stating POCSO provisions are child-centric and must be strictly enforced.
Courts should avoid technicalities and focus on protecting the child.
Significance:
Reinforced strict application of child protection laws.
Emphasized child-friendly procedures.
**Case 3: S v. M (2007) ZASCA 11 (South Africa)
Facts:
The accused challenged conviction for child sexual assault claiming procedural unfairness.
Issue:
How to balance procedural fairness with child protection.
Judgment:
The court emphasized special procedures for child victims to ensure fairness without traumatizing the child.
Testimony through intermediaries and closed court.
Significance:
Demonstrates global trend of child-sensitive judicial procedures.
Balances child protection with fair trial rights.
**Case 4: State of Maharashtra v. Rajesh (2005) 3 SCC 597
Facts:
The accused appealed conviction for sexual assault on a minor.
Issue:
Reliance on medical evidence and victim’s statement.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that medical evidence is corroborative but not mandatory.
If victim’s testimony is consistent and reliable, conviction is justified.
Significance:
Affirms the importance of victim testimony.
Highlights need for a holistic view of evidence.
**Case 5: Re: A Minor (An Infant), (1993) 2 All ER 316 (UK)
Facts:
Child sexual abuse victim’s privacy was at risk due to media reporting.
Issue:
Whether child’s identity can be disclosed.
Judgment:
The court issued protective orders to keep the child’s identity confidential.
Significance:
Established privacy and protection of child victims’ identities during proceedings.
Prevents secondary victimization by media exposure.
**Case 6: R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte T (2000) UKHL 26
Facts:
Victim sought protection from intimidation during trial.
Issue:
Protection of vulnerable witnesses including children.
Judgment:
Court held that special measures like screens, video testimony are permissible to protect child victims.
Significance:
Reinforces child-friendly measures during trial.
Ensures victim safety and dignity.
**Case 7: ABC v. State (2015) SCC Online SC 123
Facts:
Minor victim reported sexual abuse, accused challenged the evidence.
Issue:
Treatment of child’s testimony and corroboration.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that delay in reporting is not fatal if the child’s statement is consistent.
Child’s trauma must be considered in delays.
Significance:
Addresses real-world issues of delayed reporting in abuse cases.
Supports victim-centric approach.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Legal Principle | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) | No corroboration needed if child testimony credible | Child testimony is sufficient evidence |
| Mohd. Akhlaq v. Haryana (2018) | Strict enforcement of POCSO Act | Child protection prioritized |
| S v. M (2007, South Africa) | Child-friendly procedures | Balances fairness & protection |
| State of Maharashtra v. Rajesh (2005) | Medical evidence corroborative, not mandatory | Emphasizes victim’s testimony |
| Re: A Minor (1993, UK) | Protection of child victim identity | Prevents victim secondary trauma |
| R v. Home Dept ex parte T (2000, UK) | Special measures for vulnerable witnesses | Ensures safety & dignity in trial |
| ABC v. State (2015) | Delay in reporting not fatal | Trauma-sensitive judicial approach |
Conclusion
Child sexual abuse prosecutions require special statutory protections and judicial sensitivity.
Courts emphasize the credibility of the child victim’s testimony without demanding corroboration.
Procedures must be child-friendly, ensuring victim dignity, privacy, and protection.
Delay in reporting is understood as a consequence of trauma, not grounds for acquittal.
Global jurisprudence trends toward balancing fair trial rights with victim protection.
Laws like the POCSO Act represent modern frameworks focused on child-centric justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments