The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 reshapes the trial around the child — but it does not abolish the accused's right to test the prosecution case. In Shankar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.A. 662/2025, decided on 17 August 2026, the Delhi High Court has clarified the balance struck by Section 33: the defence is entitled to put its questions and suggestions to the child victim, but through the Special Court, which acts as the channel and the filter against aggressive or humiliating questioning.
The case
The appellant stood convicted by the Special Court under Sections 342 and 376(2)(i) and (l) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault and wrongful confinement of a child. He was sentenced to twelve years' rigorous imprisonment with fine for the POCSO offence and six months for wrongful confinement, the sentences running concurrently. On appeal, alongside the challenge on merits, the defence pressed a procedural grievance: during the child's deposition, the trial court had refused to allow the defence to put its suggestions to the witness.
Section 33: the court as channel, not wall
Section 33 of POCSO governs how a Special Court records a child's evidence. Sub-section (2) requires the prosecutor and defence counsel to communicate their questions to the Special Court, which then puts those questions to the child. Sub-section (6) obliges the court to ensure that the child is not aggressively questioned or subjected to character assassination.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held that these provisions regulate the manner of cross-examination; they do not eliminate it. In the Court's words, "The procedure contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 33 ought to have been adopted by the trial court and not prevented the defence from putting the suggestions to the witness." A trial judge who blocks defence questions outright commits an error — the statute's answer to the risk of intimidating a child is judicial mediation of the questions, not their exclusion.
What the defence keeps
The right to test the child's account — questions and suggestions on every material aspect of the prosecution case.
What the statute changes
Questions travel through the Special Court, which rephrases them in child-appropriate language and filters out aggression and character attacks.
Why the conviction survived
Having identified the procedural lapse, the High Court examined whether it caused prejudice warranting interference. It did not. The child's testimony was found reliable and consistent with the medical and surrounding evidence, and the ingredients of Section 6 POCSO — aggravated penetrative sexual assault, the victim being below twelve — stood established. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. The judgment thus separates two questions that are often conflated: whether the trial court erred, and whether the error unravels the verdict.
Practical significance
For defence counsel in POCSO trials, the decision is a reminder to place every proposed question and suggestion on record before the Special Court. If the court declines to put a question, that refusal — and the question itself — should appear in the record, because an appellate court can only assess prejudice against what was actually sought to be asked. For prosecutors and Special Courts, it confirms that the protective architecture of Section 33 is mandatory but is not a licence to foreclose the defence.
The evidentiary framework in POCSO trials includes the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act once foundational facts are proved. Testing the child's evidence through court-mediated cross-examination is, therefore, often the principal avenue open to the defence — which is precisely why the High Court insisted that the Section 33(2) channel be kept open.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a child victim be cross-examined at all in a POCSO trial?
Yes. The right of the accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, including the child victim, survives under POCSO. What changes is the mode: under Section 33(2), questions from both prosecution and defence are communicated to the Special Court, which puts them to the child, and Section 33(6) forbids aggressive questioning and character assassination.
What did the trial court do wrong in this case?
The trial court had disallowed the defence from putting its suggestions to the child witness altogether. The High Court held this was procedurally incorrect: instead of preventing the defence, the court ought to have followed Section 33(2) and itself put the defence's questions and suggestions to the child.
Why was the conviction still upheld?
A procedural lapse vitiates a trial only where it causes prejudice affecting the outcome. On the evidence — the testimony of the victim and the surrounding material — the High Court found the offences under Sections 342 and 376(2)(i) and (l) IPC and Section 6 POCSO proved, and affirmed the sentence of twelve years' rigorous imprisonment.
What protections does the child have during testimony?
The Special Court must ensure frequent breaks, a child-friendly atmosphere, that the child is not called repeatedly to testify, in-camera proceedings, and that the child does not face the accused while testifying, with screens or video links available. Aggressive questioning and attacks on the child's character are prohibited.