Before parting with the case, the Court was constrained to take note of certain ‘disturbing’ issues which were apparent from the record produced before it.
At first, the Bench noted with strong disapproval that the counselor, who was called to counsel the 12-year-old sexual assault victim immediately after the incident, was not only allowed to be examined as a defence witness. However, the confidential report on the conversation between the counselor and the victim child was brought in the public domain through an application moved by the accused for leading defence evidence.
“It is, thus, clear that this counseling had taken place, not for the purpose of recording statement of the witness or seeking assistance of the counselor to record her statement or to assist the investigating agency, but for the sole purpose of calming down the victim who was restless after the alleged incident of rape,” the Court held.
Source: Barandbench
