Section 24 of the POCSO Act runs as under :
"24. Recording of statement of a child.
(1) The statement of the child shall be
recorded at the residence of the child or
at a place where he usually resides or at
the place of his choice and as far as
practicable by a woman police officer not
below the rank of subinspector.
(2) The police officer while recording
the statement of the child shall not be
in uniform”.
(3) The police officer making the
investigation, shall, while examining the
child, ensure that at no point of time
the child come in the contact in any way
with the accused.
(4) No child shall be detained in the
police station in the night for any
reason.
(5) The police officer shall ensure that
the identity of the child is protected
from the public media, unless otherwise
directed by the Special Court in the
interest of the child.”
It is to be noted that said provisions are
made for benefit of the victim and not for benefit
of the accused. It would not lie in the mouth of
the accused that the breach of the provisions,
ultimately, would vitiate the trial. It is provided
under the said provisions that the statement of the
victim child shall be recorded usually at her place
of residence, as far as practicable by a woman
police officer not below the rank of subinspector;
and the police officer, while recording the
statement, shall not be in uniform.
13] In fact, the investigating agency requires to
be sensitive in such matters. The object and
purpose of the said provisions is to see that the
child, who has already been victimized by the
perpetrator of the crime, should not be subjected
to recording of statement at the police station by
a male officer in uniform thereby again making her
uncomfortable and causing mental trauma. In that
view of the matter, though the procedure prescribed
under Section 24 of POCSO Act, is not followed, it
can not be used to benefit the accused.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.261 OF 2014
Damodhar s/o. Himtaji Dongre,
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATE : AUGUST 12, 2015
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(cri)4825
Print Page
"24. Recording of statement of a child.
(1) The statement of the child shall be
recorded at the residence of the child or
at a place where he usually resides or at
the place of his choice and as far as
practicable by a woman police officer not
below the rank of subinspector.
(2) The police officer while recording
the statement of the child shall not be
in uniform”.
(3) The police officer making the
investigation, shall, while examining the
child, ensure that at no point of time
the child come in the contact in any way
with the accused.
(4) No child shall be detained in the
police station in the night for any
reason.
(5) The police officer shall ensure that
the identity of the child is protected
from the public media, unless otherwise
directed by the Special Court in the
interest of the child.”
It is to be noted that said provisions are
made for benefit of the victim and not for benefit
of the accused. It would not lie in the mouth of
the accused that the breach of the provisions,
ultimately, would vitiate the trial. It is provided
under the said provisions that the statement of the
victim child shall be recorded usually at her place
of residence, as far as practicable by a woman
police officer not below the rank of subinspector;
and the police officer, while recording the
statement, shall not be in uniform.
13] In fact, the investigating agency requires to
be sensitive in such matters. The object and
purpose of the said provisions is to see that the
child, who has already been victimized by the
perpetrator of the crime, should not be subjected
to recording of statement at the police station by
a male officer in uniform thereby again making her
uncomfortable and causing mental trauma. In that
view of the matter, though the procedure prescribed
under Section 24 of POCSO Act, is not followed, it
can not be used to benefit the accused.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.261 OF 2014
Damodhar s/o. Himtaji Dongre,
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATE : AUGUST 12, 2015
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(cri)4825
