Introduction
In an important judgment that strengthens the protection of child victims, the Supreme Court has upheld a conviction under the POCSO Act after observing that the ‘minor’s fear’ shown in the courtroom was a significant piece of evidence. The victim child was hardly four to five years of age. She was terribly frightened and could not even speak because of fear, when she saw the accused in the courtroom without a mask. The Court observed the reaction of the victim and considered it a genuine reaction. It reflected genuine trauma of the minor and made the ‘minor’s fear’ an important pointer which strongly supported the prosecution’s case.
Background of the Case
In this case, the accused had entered the child’s home while she was asleep and sexually assaulted her. Her mother later noticed that the child was in pain and her clothes were in a disturbed condition. An FIR was filed, and the matter moved forward under various provisions of the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
During the trial, a striking moment occurred: the child refused to testify when she saw the accused in court. She became frightened and withdrew completely. This reaction played a key role in how the courts viewed the matter. Both the trial court and the High Court held that the ‘minor’s fear’ was consistent with the behaviour of a child who had been traumatised.
Why the “Minor’s Fear” Mattered
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the defence argued that there were no visible injuries on the child, and therefore the medical evidence did not fully support the prosecution’s case. However, the Court made it clear that in cases involving such young children, medical findings cannot be the only deciding factor.
The Supreme Court observed that the child’s emotional reaction, her hesitation, silence, and visible distress when seeing the accused, was powerful evidence. According to the Court, the ‘minor’s fear’ acted as a clear indicator of what she had suffered and who she feared.
In such a small age when the girl child does not even understand what exactly happened to her, it is wrong to expect from her that she will be able to speak clearly about the incident. But her reaction after seeing the accused made it very much visible to the court to understand the truth. The statements given by her parents and the reaction given by the child has given a strong evidence to the court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has closely observed all the evidence, from the statements of the victim’s parents to the victim child’s reaction over seeing the accused, and then taken a significant step in strengthening child-protection laws. The judgment clarifies that the justice system should also observe how a young victim is responding when she sees the accused in front of her alongside other evidence like the medical records. This will make the court’s task easier to find the truth. The reaction of such a young victim can speak louder than words.The courts must be able to listen to this.