Panaji: The Bombay HC has disallowed a petition of a father seeking to reopen the cross-examination of his minor daughter, who he allegedly raped, and other family members, observing that they are already traumatised mentally and socially.The court observed that the survivor and witnesses were already examined and their cross-examination ended in Dec 2024. The father, 46, filed the petition on the grounds that his earlier advocate did not ask material questions during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The survivor, her mother, and her sister have already gone through trauma and if they are to be recalled after more than a year, then certainly they will be more traumatised, the court observed.“It would be unfair to put these vulnerable individuals in a traumatised situation once again under the shadow of a fair trial,” stated Justice Amit Jamsandekar.The court also observed that the president of the Goa Children’s Court, while recording the survivor’s evidence, noted that the “witness is continuously weeping and taking time to depose”.The man is accused of raping his younger daughter on several occasions from 2018 and 2019. He went to the high court after the Goa children’s court disallowed his plea to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination.He stated that the cross-examination conducted by his earlier advocate didn’t confront witnesses or facts necessary for effective defence, and there has been miscarriage of justice.The high court stated that if cross-examination is reopened on this ground, there will be no end to the trial. It added that the powers of the high court are to be exercised exceptionally and not in a routine manner, and added that fishing attempts are not permissible by making vague allegations. “The approach to fairness in trial ought also to be viewed from the perspectives of the victim, the witnesses, society, and the criminal justice system. The grounds, such as the advocate appointed by the party did not ask some of the questions in the cross-examination, are not good and tangible grounds,” the high court held.The high court added that if such pleas are allowed, the entire objective of special legislations such as POCSO Act and Goa Children’s Act will be frustrated.
