The court upheld that evidence related to a victim's demeanor post-incident does not inherently bolster the defense's case.

ORDER

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2026 The accused in S.C.No.156/2024 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Mattannur, arising out of Crime No.1275/2023 of Peringome police station, filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 528 of BNSS, praying for setting aside Annexure A5 order passed by the Special Judge rejecting his prayer to examine two witnesses.

2. The petitioner stands charge sheeted for committing penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim aged 15. He wanted to examine two witnesses sited in Annexure A1 witness list. Out of which, examination of witness no.2 was allowed by the learned Special Judge as per Annexure A2 order. Though summons was issued to the witness he did not turn up and thereafter, the learned Special Judge closed the evidence and posted for arguments. It was at that time, the petitioner preferred Annexure A3 & Annexure A4 applications. Those applications were rejected by the learned Special Judge as per P5 order.

3. According to the petitioner, about two months after the alleged incident, the victim was found in happy mood in a video recorded and broad casted by witness no.2. The learned Special Judge rejected the application on the ground that for the mere reason that the victim was found in a happy mood in a video recorded 2 months after the incident does not in any way improve the defence case.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner was the mahout of the elephant owned by the father of the victim. He was residing along with the victim and her family since several years before the incident. Therefore, they were very much known and familiar to each other. It is stated that the alleged video was prepared by witness no.2 in connection with the death of one of the elephants owned by the father of the victim. The victim was a girl of 15 years at the time of the alleged incident, during August 2022. However, the FIR was registered only on 03.12.2023, that too only at the instance of a friend of the victim. It shows that the victim was not aware of the seriousness of the offence committed by the peittioner upon her. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the victim was found in a happy mood in a video recorded about two months after the alleged incident, will not in any way improve the defence case. In the above circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Annexure A5 order passed by the learned Special Judge, rejecting Annexure A3 & Annexure A4 applications and as such this Crl.M.C. is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/-