Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Murugesan – Appellant
Versus
State, Represented by The Inspector of Police, Eriyur Police Station, Dharmapuri District, (Crime No.161 of 2022) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and appeal initiated. (Para 1) |
| 2. issues surrounding the right to cross-examine. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. importance of cross-examination for fair trial. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. balance between rights of accused and victim. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. decision to remand for additional cross-examination. (Para 16) |
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 evi
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 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 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....
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 court affirmed that victims of sexual assault should not undergo repeated cross-examination, emphasizing the need for fair trial rights while protecting vulnerable witnesses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strong and valid reasons to recall witnesses, the protection of child victims from repeated testimony, and the discretion of the court....
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
