Delay is uniquely corrosive in child sexual offence cases: memory fades precisely as trauma is asked to repeat itself in the witness box. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 answers with structure. Section 28 requires designated Special Courts; Section 35 requires the evidence of the child to be recorded within thirty days of the Special Court taking cognizance and the trial to be completed, as far as possible, within one year of cognizance. This explainer looks at how these timelines operate in Delhi's POCSO courts, what "as far as possible" means in practice, and how each side should engage with the clock.
The design: a specialised, timed forum
Section 28 requires the State, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, to designate a Court of Session in each district as a Special Court for POCSO offences — in Delhi, dedicated POCSO courts function in each district court complex. Specialisation is the precondition for speed: a court that tries these cases daily internalises the child-friendly procedures of Sections 33 to 37, from prohibiting aggressive cross-examination through the judge to in-camera trials, and can therefore move quickly without moving roughly.
The two clocks of Section 35
| Clock | Trigger | Requirement | Texture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child's evidence | Special Court takes cognizance | Recorded within thirty days | Delay permitted only with reasons recorded by the court |
| Whole trial | Same date of cognizance | Completed within one year, as far as possible | Directive standard; breach invites scrutiny, not automatic nullity |
The architecture is deliberate: the child's ordeal is compressed to the front of the trial, after which the case proceeds on the remaining evidence largely without the child. Related provisions reinforce the design — the child is not to be called repeatedly to testify, frequent breaks are mandated, and the assistance of interpreters, special educators and support persons is built in so that a single, well-managed session is achievable.
Where the year goes: the real sources of delay
- Chargesheet-to-cognizance drift — forensic (FSL) reports awaited for months, particularly electronic and biological evidence;
- Service and appearance gaps — witnesses relocating, IO transfers, and formal witnesses summoned repeatedly for want of coordination;
- Adjournment culture — routine accommodation requests that Section 35 was designed to discipline;
- Sequential rather than clustered listing — single-witness dates instead of grouped, day-to-day examination.
None of these is inevitable. Case management orders clustering witnesses, advance service through multiple modes, and insistence on FSL timelines are all within the Special Court's ordinary powers, and both sides are entitled to ask for them.
What each side should do with the clock
Practice note: The chronology is the most undervalued document in POCSO practice. Maintained from cognizance — date, purpose, what happened, at whose instance — it serves every actor: it substantiates or rebuts delay attribution in bail matters, supports applications for expedition, and disciplines the record if the case ever travels to the High Court in appeal or revision.
Timelines before the trial: investigation and beyond
The trial clocks sit within a longer statutory cadence. Recording of the child's statement by police is subject to child-protective requirements from the outset; the BNSS framework governs the investigation timeline with its own discipline for offences against children; and after judgment, appeals carry the general expectation of expedition that attaches to custody cases. The one-year trial standard should therefore be understood as the centrepiece of an end-to-end design, not an isolated target — and practitioners who invoke the whole design, stage by stage, serve both the child's interest in closure and the accused's interest in a prompt verdict.
The takeaway
Section 35 is not decoration; it is the statute's answer to the question every POCSO case asks — how long must a child, and an accused presumed innocent, live inside this proceeding? The timelines are enforceable in the only way procedural standards ever are: by parties who know them, invoke them on the record, and attach consequences to their breach. In Delhi's Special Courts, the case that moves is almost always the case in which someone insisted, politely and repeatedly, that the clock is part of the law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Section 35 actually mandate?
Two things: the evidence of the child shall be recorded within thirty days of the Special Court taking cognizance, with reasons for any delay recorded; and the Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within one year of taking cognizance. The first is framed as an obligation with recorded-reasons tolerance; the second as a directive standard.
Is a trial invalid if the one-year period is crossed?
No. The timelines are directory in the sense that their breach does not by itself vitiate the trial or entitle the accused to discharge. But the breach is not consequence-free either: prolonged delay weighs in bail applications, supports demands for day-to-day trial, and can found directions from the High Court on its administrative and judicial side.
Why is early recording of the child's evidence so important?
For the child, it shortens the period of dread and allows rehabilitation to begin; for the prosecution, contemporaneous testimony is more reliable; for the defence, early cross-examination pins the case before narratives harden. Adjournment-seeking on the child's evidence is viewed with corresponding strictness, and courts use screens, support persons and recorded statements to make one appearance suffice.
Do the timelines affect bail?
Substantially. Where the accused is in custody and the trial has moved nowhere near the statutory pace for reasons not attributable to the defence, the delay becomes a weighty circumstance in bail applications — the strict bail approach in serious POCSO offences is balanced against the State's failure to deliver the speedy trial the statute promises.