Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Nirmal Kumar
Murugesan – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.Nirmal Kumar, J.
The petitioner/accused in Spl.S.C.No.254 of 2023 [Old Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2023 on the file of Fast Track Mahila Court at Dharmapuri] was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court to deal with cases related to POCSO Act, Dharmapuri, by judgment dated 05.03.2024 and sentenced to undergo 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment, for the offence under Sections 5 (m), 5(n) r/w. 6(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act [POCSO Act]. Against which, the present appeal.
2. Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the victim was examined as P.W.2 in this case, Ex.P3/statement given to the Police and Ex.P4/164 statement marked through her. These two documents along with her evidence before the Court would not go together, but this has to be brought on record by way of cross examination. In this case, P.W.2 and some more witnesses not cross examined. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.1179 of 2023 to recall P.W.1 to P.W.4 and the Trial Court, by order dated 18.08.2023
The denial of cross-examination rights in a trial under the POCSO Act infringes on the accused's right to a fair trial, necessitating remand for proper procedural adherence.
The denial of an accused's right to cross-examine the victim in a POCSO case undermines the fairness of the trial, warranting remand for further examination.
The court held that the accused has a right to cross-examine the victim, but restrictions apply to protect minors, emphasizing the need for relevance and care in questioning under the provisions of S....
The court affirmed that recall of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must serve a valid purpose and the previous opportunities for cross-examination were adequate, aligning with the protective manda....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in permitting the recall of witnesses, particularly in cases involving child witnesses, and the importance of balancing....
The court affirmed that victims of sexual assault should not undergo repeated cross-examination, emphasizing the need for fair trial rights while protecting vulnerable witnesses.
Recall of witnesses – It is mandatory for a Court to recall witness for further cross-examination if his evidence appears to be essential for just decision of case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the sensitivity and caution required in exercising the discretion to re-summon a witness, especially in cases of sexual assault, balancing the vict....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
