The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to protect child victims and vulnerable witnesses of sexual abuse during court proceedings, including providing a child-friendly trial environment, appointing a support person, and ensuring a congenial atmosphere during testimony.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this Writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is the mother of a child, aged about 6 years, who is alleged to be a victim of an offence under section 377 read with Section 511 of the Indian Panel Code at the hands of his teacher-respondent No. 3. FIR No. 938/2002 was registered at P. S. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi against respondent No. 3. The trial is pending. According to the petitioner, the child complained of sexual abuse on 25. 10. 2002 and on inquiries, revealed that he was a victim of sexual abuse by respondent No. 3 on many occasions and at different locations in the school. The child was examined by Ms. Achla Bhagat, a consultant psychiatrist and psycho therapist at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. She categorically opined that it would be in the best interest of the child not to expose him to the perpetrator of the crime which may compound the impact of the abuse. She opined that the child was showing signs of Post Trauma Stress Disorder and was likely to suffer further psychological trauma if he was confronted with the accused. In these premises, the petitioner, who is the mother of the child victim, prays that the trial be conducted in a child friendly environment outside the Court room so that the child can give his evidence without fear, apprehension or intimidation. It is also prayed that the testimony of the child be recorded with the help of a close circuit live television link to avoid confrontation and eye contact between the child and the accused-respondent No. 3 and at the time of the examination of the child a support person, preferably the mother of the child, be allowed to remain present. She also seeks permission for the use of testimonial aids so that child may freely express himself in ways other than oral testimony. The State has no objection to the issuance of appropriate directions by this Court to ensure that the testimony of the child victim is recorded in a friendly and congenial atmosphere and the child does not suffer any mental trauma. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 also does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner but has two reservations. First is that the support person should not be a prosecution witness. He agrees that the father may be allowed to remain present at the time of the examination of the child as a support person. His second objection is in regard to the mode and method of the cross-examination. He submits that while issuing directions, this Court must ensure that the valuable right of the accused to cross-examine the child witness is not frustrated or defeated. The issues raised in this petition and the directions sought are squarely covered by the recent Apex court judgement in "sakshi Vs. Union of India and Ors. " reported in 2004 (2) JCC Page-892. This judgement was given in a Public Interest Litigation filed by a Social Organization "sakshi". The relief claimed in the said petition was primarily in regard to the enlargement of the definition of "sexual intercourse" as contained in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code and directions to the Union of India and others for registration of cases falling within the broadened interpretation of "sexual intercourse". Their Lordships, after in-depth examination of the question of enlargement of the definition of "rape" as contained in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code came to the conclusion that it would not be in the larger interests of the State or the people to alter the definition by a process of judicial interpretation. However, in para 27 of the judgement, their Lordships considered certain suggestions made by the petitioner for the protection of a victim of sexual abuse at the time of recording of his statement in Court. These suggestions read as under :

" (i) Permitting use of a videotaped interview of the child s statement by the judge (in the presence of a child support person ). (ii) Allow a child