LCA TEJAS Achieved Yet another Accomplishment

With three consecutive start-ups of its engine after overnight soak in extreme cold(around -15ºC) conditions of Laddakh winter, that too without any external assistance, Tejas, the Indian Light Combat Aircraft has achieved yet another and a rare distinction. Starting the fighter aircraft under such extreme condition without any external assistance or heating is a technology challenge. The requirements become further stringent when the starting is to be done three times consecutively with a partially charged battery. Team LCA led by AERD&C of HAL, and members from ADA, NFTC, IAF, CEMILAC and DGAQA have succeeded in achieving this. “The team LCA has achieved a technological breakthrough”, stated Dr. PS Subramanyam PGD (CA) & Director, ADA. The engine starter is developed indigenously by HAL Aero Engine Research and Design Centre (AERDC), Bangalore. Prior to aircraft tests, the Jet Fuel Starter (JFS) was extensively tested on test rig to meet starting conditions across the operating altitudes including Leh (10,700 ft.) and Khardungla (18300 ft.). The control software of JFS was fine tuned to work at all operating altitudes with no adjustments from cockpit. GE-F404-IN20 engine start up control schedule was also varied with several control patches to establish reliable start.

Semiconductor Wafer Fabrication (FAB) manufacturing facilities in the country

Reconstitution of Empowered Committee regarding setting up of Semiconductor Wafer Fabrication (FAB) manufacturing facilities in the country

The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, has approved to reconstitute the Empowered Committee to setup the Semiconductor Wafer Fabrication (FAB) projects, with the following composition: a) Dr. V.K. Saraswat, Member, NITI Aayog ….. Chairman b) Dr. K. Radhakrishnan, Former Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation c) Secretary, Department of Expenditure d) Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion e) Dr. M.J. Zarabi, Former CMD, Semiconductor Complex Ltd. (SCL) - Technical Expert f) Prof. Narendra Krishna Karmarkar, Distinguished Visiting Professor, IIT-Bombay g) Secretary, Department of Electronics and Information Technology - Member Convener h) Empowered Committee may co-opt any other experts Background  The Government had in 2011 constituted an Empowered Committee to identify technology and investors and to recommend incentives to be provided to set up two FAB facilities in the country. This Committee submitted its recommendations to the Government. Based on the recommendations of the Empowered Committee, the Union Cabinet accorded approval for establishing two FAB manufacturing facilities by two consortia, one led by M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. along with M/s IBM (USA) and M/s Tower Jazz (Israel) and the other led by M/s. HSMC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. along with M/s ST Microelectronics (France/Italy) and M/s Silterra (Malaysia); and authorized the Empowered Committee to take all decisions to implement the FAB projects in furtherance of the decision of the Cabinet Letters of Intent have been issued to the two consortia on 19.03.2014 for setting up FAB facilities in India. The setting up of Semiconductor Wafer Fabrication units is a critical pillar required to promote Electronics System Design and Manufacturing in India which will stimulate the flow of capital and technology, create employment opportunities, help higher value addition in the electronic products manufactured in India, reduce dependence on imports, and lead to innovation.

Why persist with nuclear power?

The path-breaking 2006 India-United States agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation, which had been gathering dust because of the subsequent Indian law on nuclear liability, appears to have been taken off the shelf. One of the key agreements finalised during United States President Barack Obama’s Republic Day visit, it has four elements. India will not change its nuclear liability law; instead, it will create a government fund to address claims resulting from an accident. India will also take a fresh look at the provision of its law that permits claims made under tort law for damages caused; and the United States has given up its demand to track material supplied under the peaceful nuclear programme.

Only very broad features have been outlined and, hopefully, when the details become known the Indian government will not be found to have given away where it matters. If a negative picture does eventually emerge from the details, then the question will be — what for? The Bharatiya Janata Party has high stakes, as India being a nuclear power is close to its heart — and the status becomes meaningful not just when it has the bomb but when it also has a smooth nuclear power programme and is able to join bodies like the Nuclear Suppliers Group. That – and the final prize, a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council – will happen only if the United States government is well disposed, after being able to help its firms sell nuclear power reactors worth billions of dollars to India. But they will not do so if the liability for an accident finally comes to rest on their doorsteps.

The overall reality regarding nuclear accidents is that they can cause huge damage and if power plant suppliers (American) and operators (Indian) are to be liable for claims for damages by third parties who have been harmed, these could drive both bankrupt. The size of such claims has prompted many governments, including the United States, to share the risk and the fund promised by India moves in that direction. The issue is if the Rs 1,500 crore of public money (to be put up by the nationalised insurance companies and the Indian government) to create an insurance cover for claims is not enough, then will there be a recourse to the plant suppliers? If there isn’t, and a disaster takes place, then India and its people will be left holding the baby. That will be a repeat of Bhopal — and the Indian law is the result of the memory of the great injustice done to its victims.

The case for Indian insistence on leaving intact its liability law, one of the firmest in the world, rests on United States courts’ willingness to listen to damages claimed from suppliers in the case of the Three Mile Island and Fukushima accidents, as Siddharth Varadarajan has pointed out. It is also worth asking how a car is so different from a nuclear power plant. Not only have enormous claims been allowed by United States courts for injuries caused by defective cars, United States regulators move well before victims’ claims can be pronounced upon by civilian courts. Toyota has been fined a phenomenal $1.2 billion, and investigations have been started against General Motors. The best way to ensure that equipment is designed to be safe is to raise the cost of malfunction, both through government fines for criminal neglect and court-determined civilian claims.

The key issue is if damages caused by nuclear accidents can be so huge, why go for nuclear power? It begins with the idea of a macho India that has the bomb and the persistence with nuclear power feeds into it. On the other hand, Japan after the Fukushima accident shut down all its nuclear reactors — and when they start reopening later this year, four years after the shutdown, not all of them will do so. Some will reach 40 years and will be decommissioned, a costly process. In the aftermath of the Fukushima accident Germany decided to close all its nuclear power plants by 2022. “Nuclear power [has] too many inherent risks to inflict it on us and our children,” said the German commission that went into the “ethics of nuclear power” after Fukushima.

Investment costs for nuclear power, at Rs 6-8 crore a megawatt, are about the same as for thermal power. The cost of grid-connected solar power is rapidly approaching that of thermal power. All sensible nations should work towards a combination of wind, solar and gas-based power (these plants are least polluting and can be quickly started and shut down to meet gaps). The good news is that the United States has also promised to help create a huge solar power capacity whose technology is maturing rapidly.

As for possessing a bomb, it does not enhance security. Pakistan followed quickly in India’s footsteps with its own nuclear tests in 1998 so that India’s superiority in conventional defence capability was replaced with parity in nuclear capability.

After the nuclear step, the big leap

For the new Modi-Obama vision to succeed, India would need a more agile management of its international engagement on the economic and political sides considering the fact that the two leaders have agreed to elevate their strategic dialogue to include strategy and commerce

It is a measure of how important the India-United States civil nuclear agreement was to the bilateral relationship that even Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that it constitutes the “centrepiece” of the strategic partnership between the two great democracies. However, the U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to India this weekend was not about that “centrepiece” but about the entire mantle.

Tying up the loose ends of the Indian nuclear liability law was about completing unfinished business. It was also about regaining U.S. trust. After all, the George Bush administration helped legitimise India’s status as a nuclear weapons power and expected, in exchange, at least some of the business that would then get generated. The liability law that India then enacted was viewed as an act of bad faith. The trust that successive Prime Ministers, from P.V. Narasimha Rao onwards, injected into the relationship was wasted away by this one act of Indian doublespeak.

Political doublespeak

To return the relationship to where it was in 2008, when the U.S. secured the approval of the Nuclear Suppliers Group for India’s nuclear programme, it was necessary to clear the air on the liability law. In short, the nuclear stuff that hogged the headlines all through the weekend was just the ribbon that had to be cut for Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi to then move on. Move on they did. The real outcome of the visit is captured in the statements on their bilateral Strategic Vision and the Declaration of Friendship.

What the entire nuclear deal episode captures, however, is the price we pay for our political doublespeak. As Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh would often say that a political party’s view on policy should not be judged by what it says when in Opposition, but by what it does when in government. So, even though it was the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under the leadership of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, that took the “first steps” and the “next steps” towards a strategic partnership with the U.S., the same BJP opposed the India-U.S. civil nuclear energy agreement under the leadership of Lal Krishna Advani, when he was Leader of the Opposition.

Ironically, it is Sushma Swaraj who, in 2010, reportedly picked up the phone and called the CPI(M)’s Sitaram Yechury, striking an alliance with the Left to demand changes to the original nuclear liability law, who has had to now help find a way out of the impasse she helped create.

But then, the Advani BJP’s objection to the nuclear deal was not based on genuine concerns about strategic autonomy and the future of the nuclear programme. When Dr. Singh managed to win over Mr. Vajpayee’s National Security Advisor, the late Brajesh Mishra, and the leadership of the Department of Atomic Energy, the Advani BJP’s game became clear. It was in fact seeking to oust the Manmohan Singh government, not really block the nuclear deal.

Back on track

Given that the BJP in office today is not the Advani BJP, but the Narendra Modi BJP and given that Mr. Modi was never an enthusiastic supporter of the Advani group’s ambition to seize power, he would have had no problem endorsing the deal that Dr. Singh struck and getting on with business. That is precisely what he has done. In six quick months he has cleared the cobwebs and revived what seemed to have become a moribund relationship during Dr. Singh’s second term.

The weakening of Dr. Singh’s prime ministership also coincided with domestic distractions for the U.S. President. The post-2008 economic crisis not only forced Mr. Obama to cosy up to China, but his Afghanistan strategy took him closer to Pakistan. India felt abandoned. It took the decisive victory of Mr. Modi, in May 2014, and a new reassessment of a post-Modi India by Mr. Obama, for the deal to be back on track.

Mr. Modi has understood the strategic significance of the nuclear deal; that it was not just about building nuclear power plants but, as he put it so eloquently on Saturday, the “centrepiece” of a strategic partnership. The wayward course of the nuclear deal only underscores the importance of strong domestic political leadership for success on the external front. A ‘strong’ Dr. Singh clinched the deal in 2008, a weakened one failed to deliver on it. A ‘strong’ successor has now completed the project.

The new ‘mantle’

The new ‘mantle’ is now defined by the joint statement issued by Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi, which has to be read within the wider framework of bilateral relations defined by the Declaration of Friendship and the Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region. While the media, quite understandably, remained focussed on the “centrepiece,” a new mantle has now been put in place defined by these Vision and Friendship statements.

The vision defining the new partnership captures the geopolitical view that the key to India’s rise as a global player is “inclusive economic development” at home. It is also in India’s interest, as well as that of the U.S., to establish a rules-based system of global economic governance and a rules-based security architecture.

Critics of the U.S.-India partnership, and there would be many in both countries, tend to assess the new understanding within the paradigm of outdated Cold War thinking. India-baiters in the U.S. would chastise Mr. Obama for giving India too much strategic space with no assurance of any alliance being offered in exchange. Critics of the U.S. in India will charge Mr. Modi with bartering away India’s strategic autonomy and its “independent foreign policy.”

Both would be wrong. The reality is that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi have come to terms with the reality of the new world order, in which they see their partnership as strengthening a global economic and security architecture that would benefit both. In that sense, the three documents issued by the two leaders in New Delhi offer a realistic assessment of the existing power equation between the two interlocutors, on the one hand, and between them and other major powers, like Russia and China, on the other.

Time for hard work

Going forward, the U.S. and India will work more closely together but will also be able to offer each other a wider margin for individual manoeuvre. Thus, for example, the U.S. may not be averse to India’s present level of engagement of Russia and China, just as India would be more understanding of U.S. relations with China and Pakistan. This new way of approaching the bilateral relationship within a larger global context would enable the two leaders to avoid the “zero-sum-game” trap in the regional context.

All this calls for a much more mature handling of Indian foreign policy and of India’s many strategic partnerships. Mr. Modi has demonstrated that he has the wit and wisdom to pull it off — being friendly with Vladimir Putin even as he hugs Barack Obama. But it is not an easy act to sustain, especially when difficult forks are reached and a choice has to be made one way or another. The art of diplomacy lies in avoiding such dilemmas.

For the new Modi-Obama vision to succeed, India would need a much more alert and agile management of its international engagement on the economic and political side, specially considering the fact that the two leaders have agreed to elevate their strategic dialogue to a strategic and commercial dialogue.

This would require much greater inter-ministerial coordination at the bilateral, regional and global levels. India cannot continue with the contradiction of the past wherein one ministry would be seeking favours from a country while another ministry would be poking it in the eye or cocking a snook.

As Superman’s uncle tells him when he discovers the newly acquired powers of his young nephew, with great power comes great responsibility. One can extend that argument and suggest that in fact the quest for great power entails even greater responsibility. Once a nation has arrived at a new equilibrium of power, it can afford to make mistakes and get away. But the journey to that new status is fraught and the path is replete with slippery slopes.

A new chapter of openness

As he listed the reasons why he believes the India-U.S. relationship is the “defining partnership” of this century, Barack Obama dwelt in his farewell speech on all the similarities between the two nations: as diverse, multi-religious, tolerant democracies that respect human rights. Over the last three days, he made a much more vivid enunciation of where the future of India-U.S. ties lies as well. From the joint statement, to a declaration of friendship, to a strategic vision for the Asia-Pacific region, rarely has the state-of-play between New Delhi and Washington been so clearly mapped out during any Indo-U.S. summit. In inviting President Obama at short notice, having him officiate over the Republic Day parade and make a series of public appearances together, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has gone where his predecessors have often shied away from — in seeking to take bilateral ties with America to a new level. The strategic defence framework, say officials, will see their militaries move to a new level of closeness, for example. Whether it is about defence exchanges, joint production of the four projects outlined, or the MoU between national defence universities, it is clear that the interaction planned between the Indian and U.S. armed forces will be unprecedented.

The openness in ties was clear in other spheres of the relationship: from the frank discourse over economic issues, to the obvious agreement on countering climate change, to the details of the Obama-Modi personal “chemistry” that they referred to with ease. Mr. Modi went so far as to say that India and the U.S. had benefited from the bonhomie he shared with Mr. Obama. However, while the exuberance and optimism in the relationship is a positive and welcome development, especially as it comes after a period of intense negativity, it should not come at the cost of other relationships. President Obama’s criticism of Russia while in India, calling it “a bully”, was hardly something that Prime Minister Modi could have anticipated, yet it may make a dent in relations with Russia. The vision statement on the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean region is likely to have a more lasting impact on relations with China, as it seeks to portray an India-U.S. front against diplomatic, economic and security challenges in the region. It will be External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s task, as she heads to Beijing shortly, to assuage any fears that the pact is directed in that direction.

Meanwhile, as the euphoria from the successes of the visit subsides, Mr. Modi will need to explain domestically just how he was able to achieve the visit’s biggest “breakthrough”: on nuclear issues. For the past six years, India and the U.S. have been unable to conclude the “administrative arrangements” that would enable commercial cooperation between Indian and American companies under the civil nuclear deal. While diplomats are to be congratulated on having cleared this hurdle, the Indian public must be informed about exactly what assurances have been given to U.S. officials in return for their acceptance of the Indian liability law, and what the added costs would be. The UPA government came in for much criticism from the then-in-Opposition BJP and paid a heavy price for its lack of openness and clarity on liability issues. Mr. Modi and his government need to be more forthcoming about the details of the agreement. Since the Indian taxpayer will be the consumer, the underwriter and the potential victim of any untoward nuclear accident, the subject of liability in the nuclear deal is of utmost importance. The “coming out” of the India-U.S. relationship is indeed a welcome “new chapter” in relations, but it cannot be written fully without complete openness on the nuclear deal as well, which has been described as the “centrepiece” of India-U.S. understanding.

On the business side, there were no significant outcomes to talk about except for the resolve to expand trade ties and a $4-billion commitment from the U.S. in investment and loans. To put this in perspective, Mr. Modi returned with a $35-billion investment commitment from Japan when he visited Tokyo last year. Ironically, half of the investment committed by Mr. Obama will go into the renewable energy sector where the U.S. and India are locked in a trade dispute at the WTO. The dispute is over India’s imposition of local content requirements on solar cells and modules as part of the projects awarded under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission. The U.S. is also unhappy with the Make in India policy, especially in the renewable energy sector where it sees great prospects for its own companies. It remains to be seen how much of the investment committed by Mr. Obama actually happens, given that it is linked to Indian companies sourcing technology and products from the U.S. If the Indian IT sector was hoping for an agreement on the issue of H1B visas, then it must be disappointed for Mr. Obama did not go beyond giving an assurance that the U.S. would look into all aspects as part of overall immigration reform. Given that both the Senate and the House of Representatives are under the control of Republicans, it would be rather difficult for the President to push through deep immigration reform; he can accomplish only as much as is possible through executive action. Mr. Obama also had India on the back foot on the subject of Intellectual Property protection, pointing out that U.S. companies were hampered by the lack of adequate protection in India. Mr. Modi also found himself defending the Make in India initiative even while promising that adversarial taxation policies would be phased out. Evidently, there are issues where the two countries have a lot of work to do to align their respective positions; but that may just have got easier now after Mr. Obama’s high-on-optics visit and the understanding struck between him and Mr. Modi.

Legal Provisions Concerning Sexual Violence against Women and Children in India

On 14^th November, 2012, a new law was enacted, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which brought in major changes in the law related to sexual violence, as far as children below 18 years are concerned.

The aims and objectives of this Act were:

·        To secure a child’s right to safety, security and protection from sexual abuse.

·        To protect children from inducement or coercion to sexual activity

·        To prevent exploitative use of children in prostitution and generation of pornographic material.

·        To provide a comprehensive legislation to safeguard the interest of a child at every stage - reporting, recording of evidence, investigation and trial of offences.

·        To provide for establishment of special courts for sensitive and speedy trial

It made the law gender neutral and brought within its purview sexual assault of both girls and boys below the age of 18 years. It also widened the definition of sexual violence beyond the conventional peno-vaginal penetration to include crimes which did not amount to rape under the IPC. It also prescribed stringent punishment and many procedural safety measures to protect the child during investigation and trial. 

But this statute received hardly any media attention and the police continued to use the existing IPC sections in most cases of sexual assault on children. Things began to change only by January, 2013, when, after the gruesome gang rape and murder of a 23 year old para-medic in Delhi, there were widespread protests and international attention was drawn to the issue of sexual violence against women in India and the question whether we have adequate and stringent laws in place to address the issue became the point of debate in the media.  In response, the government set up a committee headed by late Justice J.S. Verma to make recommendations for formulating a new law to deal with sexual violence.  As per these recommendations a draft Bill was submitted to the Parliament, and without much delay, on 3^rd April, 2013, the Amended law came into effect which changed the relevant sections in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act (IEA).  With these changes the definition of sexual violence and the procedural aspects to provide safety to women and children are more or less, similar.

The same are provided here below in a tabular form for easy reference.

Important provisions under the POCSO Act, 2012

Victim under the Act: Any person, both male and female, below the age of 18 years.

Accused under the Act: Any person, both male and female, adult or child.

Note: As far as the offence of sexual violence against children is concerned, the law is gender neutral.  Also note that the POCSO Act does not use the word “rape” and uses instead the word “sexual assault”. The definition is very wide and includes a range of offences including non-penetrative sexual abuse and also oral and anal sex and insertion of objects into the vagina, anus or other body orifices. If grave harm is caused to the victim or if the offence is committed by a person in authority, the offence is termed as “aggravated” offence.

Section	Provision
S. 3	Penetrative Sexual Assault: Insertion, penetration, manipulation with the penis, any body part, or any object into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child.
S. 5	Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault: ‘person in authority’ and/or if additional harm and injury is committed.
S. 7	Sexual Assault: touching a child with sexual intent (non penetrative). (Touching vagina, penis, anus, breast or any body part of a child)
S. 9	Aggravated Sexual Assault: ‘person in authority’ and/or  if additional harm and injury is committed.
S. 11	Sexual Harassment: Word, sound, gesture, exhibiting any body part, showing pornography with sexual intent. Making a child exhibit any body part, stalking the child, threatening the use of pornographic media
S. 13 & S. 15	Pornography: use of a child for pornographic purposes. Storing pornographic media of a child for commercial use.
S. 19-21	Mandatory Reporting: S.19 (1) any person who has knowledge of sexual offence committed or likely to be committed on a child S.20 management and staff of media, hotels, lodges, hospitals, clubs, studios and photographic facilities S.21. Failure to report or record is punishable S.21 (3) However, a child who fails to report not punished.

All offences under the POCSO Act are considered as grave offences.  Hence they are non-bailable and cognisable and the trial are to be conducted by the Court of Sessions.

Amended provisions under the Indian Penal Code

S. 376	Insertion, penetration, manipulation with the penis, any body part, or any object into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman.
S. 376 (2)	Special circumstances
S. 376 A	Injury which causes the death or persistent vegetative state
S. 376 B	By husband upon his wife during separation
S. 376 C	By a person in authority
S. 376 D	Gang Rape
S. 376 E	Repeat Offenders

These are serious offences and hence they are non bailable and cognisable and the trial is to be conducted by the Court of Sessions.

S. 354	Assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty: If a man assaults or uses criminal force on any woman with the intention of outraging her modesty
S. 354 A	Sexual Harassment: If a man makes physical contact and advances, demands or requests for sexual favours, shows pornography against the will of a woman or makes sexually coloured remarks
S. 354 B	Assault or criminal force with intent to disrobe: If a man assaults or uses criminal force against a woman with the intention of disrobing her
S. 354 C	Voyeurism: If a man watches or captures the image of a woman in a private act or disseminates such an image
S. 354 D	Stalking: If a man follows or contacts a woman despite a clear indication of disinterest
S. 509	Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman: If a man utters any word, sound, gesture, exhibits any object with the intention that it is heard or seen or intrudes the privacy

These are considered to be less serious offences and hence the trial is to be conducted by the

Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) or the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) of the area. Some of these are bailable and the others are non-bailable.

Procedural Safety Measures:

The present law for sexual violence upon women and children provides for several safety measures for protecting the victim / survivor right from the time of lodging the FIR till the end of the trial. Some of them are summarized below.

While Lodging the First Information Report (FIR) at the police station:

A victim need not come to the police station to lodge the FIR.  The same can be given to the police by a relative or a friend who will be the complainant. 

The FIR shall be recorded in writing and shall be read over to the complainant and a copy of the same shall be provided free of cost to the complainant.

Failure to record an FIR is a cognizable offence.

While recording the statement of the victim:

After the FIR is lodged, the police will record a detailed statement of the victim regarding the crime. The same shall be recorded in a simple language

The police shall not reveal the identity of the victim to the media or to the public.

A woman or a child shall not be detained in a police station overnight.

If the victim needs a translator the same shall be provided.

Within 24 hours of receiving information the victim shall be taken to the nearest hospital for medical examination and care

If the victim has any other special needs, the same shall be met.

If the victim is a child,

·        The statement shall be recorded at a place where the child resides or where the child feels comfortable.

·        The officer recording the statement shall not be below the rank of sub inspector and should preferably be a woman officer.

·        The police officer shall not be in uniform.

·        The child shall not come in contact in any way with the accused

·        A person who the child trusts shall be present

·        For mentally or physically (temporary or permanent) disabled child, a special educator / expert may be called

·        If possible, the statement of the child may be recorded using audio-video electronic

·        If required, the police shall take the child to the nearest shelter home for emergency shelter and produce the child before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC)

·        The Police shall report all cases of child sexual offences to the Child Welfare Committee and Special Court within 24 hours

Medical and Forensic Examination:

A person who the victim trusts shall be present at the time of medical examination

A female victim shall be examined only by a lady doctor

The police shall ensure the samples collected from the hospital are sent to the forensic laboratory at the earliest

The medical practitioner shall treat the child for cuts, bruises, bodily and genital injuries, exposure to STDs & HIV. S/he shall discuss possible pregnancy and emergency contraceptives with the child or the person who the child trusts. Rule 5 (4)

The victim may be referred for mental, psychological or other counselling.

Non treatment of a victim by a Hospital is an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine or both under S. 166B Cr. P C

The medical and forensic examination shall be conducted as per the Central guidelines or the guidelines issued by the respective state.  

Scheme for Financial Support and to provide support to overcome and physical and mental trauma caused by the incident:

Many states have introduced schemes for either compensation or financial support to the victim. There are different models for the same.

The Maharashtra state has introduced the Manodhairya Scheme for victims of rape and acid attacks, where the compensation has to be paid within a few weeks of lodging the FIR.

Legal assistance during the trial is also provided as per this scheme.

During the Trial

The POCSO Act provides for setting up of special child friendly courts to conduct the trial.

Many states have also set up special courts for all cases of sexual assault concerning women and children.

All trials concerning sexual assault will be conducted in camera.

The victim shall be allowed to have a support person inside the court during the examination and cross examination.

Questions regarding the past sexual history of the victim or child, or any other humiliating questions which cause the victim trauma shall not be asked during cross examination. 

If the child I below 7 years, there cannot be direct cross examination.  The lawyer would have to give the questions in writing to the judge and the judge shall explain the same to the child.

Conclusions:

If all the protective measures are stringently followed, the investigations and trial will not be a harrowing experience for the victim and this will in turn provide for maintaining the dignity of the victim, which in turn will improve conviction rates in the country