The rejection of a minor victim's request for video conferencing testimony was overturned to ensure the protection and dignity of vulnerable witnesses under the POCSO Act, highlighting the judiciary's responsibility to facilitate justice.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. The present CRLMC application has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the AD HOC ADJ-FTSC POCSO-II, Cuttack, along with an additional prayer to direct the said AD HOC ADJ-FTSC POCSO-II, Cuttack to examine the Victim the means of Video Conferencing (VC) in the Special G.R. Case No.30 of 2023 corresponding to Salepur P.S. Case No.54 of 2023 which has been filed for commission of offences under Sections 363 / 344/ 366/ 376(3) of the I.P.C read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 20212.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The background of the case giving rise to the present application, is as follows; Earlier on the 16^th of February 2023 at around 5:50 pm in the afternoon, telephonic information was received by the child-line (number 1098) form the victim, who happens to be the daughter of the present Petitioner, that she had been kidnapped, confined in a single room, and tortured (mentally and physically) by the Opposite Party No.2, Dipak @ Dillip Kumar Satapathy. Later, on the very same evening, members of the ‘Tangi Choudwar Child Marriage Task Force Committee’ rescued the Victim from the residence of the Opposite Party No.2. Consequently a written report of the incident was lodged at Japakuda OP, basing upon which the F.I.R, under Annexure-1 series, has been registered.

3. On perusal of the F.I.R and the Chargesheet at Annexure-1, it is revealed that the statement of the Victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C have been recorded. Although, the Victim has declined to undergo medical examination. Further, the IO has found out during investigation that the Victim is minor aged around 15years and 6 months during the registration of the F.I.R. Moreover, the Chargesheet also reveals that the Victim was allegedly kidnapped by the Opposite Party No.2 from her lawful guardianship when she was 15 years of age by inducing her to marry him. It has also been alleged in the Chargesheet that The OP No.2 kept repeated sexual relationship with the victim by keeping her at his house for around a year.

4. Meanwhile, in BLAPL No.1201 of 2024 filed by the Opposite Party No.2, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.05.2024, has allowed the bail application of the Accused-Opposite Party No.2 primarily on the ground of pre-trial detention of the Opposite Party No.2 and non-examination of the Victim. While allowing the bail application the Hon’ble Court had also requested the Trial Court to provide appropriate facilities for examination of the Victim through VC mode, if such a request was made on behalf of the Petitioner. Consequently, the Petitioner on behalf of the Victim filed a petition under section 36(2) of POCSO Act, 2012 (hereinafter “POCSO Act”) for recording of evidence of the minor-Victim through VC mode. However, such application of the Victim has been rejected by the learned Court in seisin over the matter vide order dated 02.09.2024, at Annexure-3 series. Aggrieved by such rejection, the Petitioner has approached this Court under section 528 of the BNSS .

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

5. Heard Mr.Biplaba P. B. Bahali, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. It is the Petitioner’s primary allegation that that the Court at which the present case is proceeding is situated at a considerable distance from the village where she resides alone with only her minor daughter, i.e. the Victim, and no other male members. It was further contended that given her dire financial conditi