Raped At 14, Hounded By The Perpetrator: The Story Of Shweta And Many Others Like Here

Shweta (name changed) was all of 14 years when she was raped by Rahul (name changed), a 17-year-old boy from her neighbourhood. The incident came to light after Shweta’s mother discovered she was pregnant. After the FIR was recorded, Rahul, since he was a child in conflict with law (CCL), was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and immediately granted bail. The offence was categorised as a serious offence and a trial in summons would commence. 

But what ensued for Shweta was a painful ordeal – she had to undergo a medical termination of pregnancy, miss school and face grave humiliation in the locality. Rahul, having returned to the same neighbourhood, harasses Shweta and her family daily. He, his family and friends abuse Shweta when she is on her way to school or the public washroom. On one occasion, they went to her house and attacked them with sticks. The police merely filed an NC and let them go.

With the help of her Support Person, Shweta approached the JJB for help. Then came the shock: the JJB has no space for child victims.

Child victims and their families experience the JJB process as opaque, intimidating and deeply insensitive. While the JJ Act speaks extensively about rehabilitation and procedural safeguards for the CCL, it says remarkably little about the dignity, participation and protection of the child victim appearing before the same board.

The contrast with proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act is striking. POCSO jurisprudence has evolved around the principle that a child survivor should not suffer secondary victimisation through the justice process. Child-friendly procedures, support persons, separate waiting spaces and protection from direct confrontation with the accused are central features of the legislation.

These safeguards often disappear when the case is before the JJB. Many child victims describe arriving at the JJB only to find themselves waiting in crowded corridors alongside the CCL and his family members. There are no separate waiting areas or trauma-informed arrangements to prevent unnecessary confrontation. A child who has survived sexual abuse has to relive that trauma while waiting outside the courtroom.

Inside the courtroom the experience is even more frightening and basic provisions of POCSO are not followed. Proceedings are not conducted in camera. Defence lawyers are often accompanied by several junior lawyers when the evidence of the child victim is being recorded. The child victim is already in an uncomfortable position, having to recount the instance of sexual abuse in an unfamiliar environment – the presence of many unnecessary people creates an intimidating and uncomfortable environment for them. Often, the board does not allow the person whom the child trusts, or even the Support Person, to be with them while they are recording their evidence.

The child victim is forced to face the CCL and his family directly while giving evidence, as there is no separation in the courtroom. The JJB does not conduct the deposition in the chamber or use screening arrangements to shield the child victim. In addition, one finds the board granting leeway to defence lawyers, allowing them to question the child victim in an aggressive manner. The victim is intimidated as the questions are not explained to them. When the defence lawyer asks inappropriate, often character-assassinating questions, the board does not object and the child is forced to answer. In many instances, defence advocates snigger and pass insensitive comments, which creates a hostile atmosphere and affects the child emotionally.

The Board frequently calls victims for recording of evidence and then adjourns the matter on frivolous grounds. When adjournments are granted, no costs are imposed. The child victim faces immense costs, loss of school days, trauma and distress each time they are called to court.

The lack of transparency when it comes to documentation compounds this distress. The JJB does not issue a written summons to the child victim to appear before them. Child victims are informed orally, by the police, and that too at the last minute. This makes it difficult for the child victim to prepare themselves mentally and to contact a trusted person to accompany and support them during the proceedings.

The child victim is not provided access to legal documentation related to the case, including the charge sheet, applications or any other reports. Even important documents like the bail order and the judgement are not given. Child victims are asked to go through an administrative hurdle of applying and paying for a certified copy, and even then they are met with a blanket response: that proceedings are “confidential”.

Confidentiality is undoubtedly essential to protect the CCL. But confidentiality cannot become a shield against accountability or a justification for denying victims meaningful participation in proceedings that profoundly affect their safety and well-being. A child victim cannot be expected to trust a process from which they are almost entirely excluded.

And finally, the issue of delay. Shweta’s case has been pending before the JJB for five years now even though the JJ Act mandates that an enquiry has to be completed within four months. Each day forces her to relive the trauma, prolongs her fear, uncertainty and emotional distress while critical years of her childhood slip away.

This is not an argument against the rights of children in conflict with law. Those rights exist for compelling constitutional and developmental reasons and must remain firmly protected. Rather, it is a reminder that the child who has experienced sexual violence is also entitled to equal concern from the justice system. A truly child-centred justice system cannot focus on only one child. Until the dignity, participation and protection of child victims become integral to JJB proceedings, the promise of a truly child-centred justice system will remain incomplete.

The recent call by the Ministry of Women and Child Development seeking inputs and suggestions to the Juvenile Justice framework, offers an opportunity to correct this imbalance. The law should explicitly recognise the rights of child victims appearing before JJB and incorporate trauma-informed procedures consistent with the spirit of the POCSO Act.

[All names have been changed to protect confidentiality. D’Mello is the director of Majlis, a legal centre for women and children. Views are personal.]

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author