Cost imposition for witness attendance in POCSO cases must balance witness welfare and procedural rights.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1293 of 2024 in Special S.C.No.5 of 2023 by the Special Judge, Special Court for Cases Exclusive Trial under POCSO Act at Tiruvannamalai.

2. The case of the petitioner is that based on the complaint given by the mother of the victim girl, the respondent police registered the case in Crime No.9 of the 2020 against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 3 63, 366, 376(2)(n), 506(2) IPC read with Sections 3 (a), 4, 5(l), 5(j) (ii) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The respondent police after completion of investigation, filed the final report and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.5 of 2023 by the Special Judge, Special Court for Cases Exclusive Trial under POCSO Act at Tiruvannamalai. Thereafter, the prosecution witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined in chief. However, the petitioner could not cross examine them. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1293 of 2024 under Section 3 11 of Cr.P.C. to recall the prosecution witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.10 for cross examination. Though the learned Special Judge allowed the petition, imposed cost of Rs.32,000/- towards cost for the witnesses to be paid on or before 19.09.2024. Since the petitioner could not arrange said amount, he filed a petition in Crl.M.P.SR.No.1677 of 2024 on 19.09.2024 to extend the time to deposit the said cost, whereas the trial Court declined to entertain the extension petition and as such, dismissed the recall petition on the ground that the conditional order was not complied with. Hence, the present revision is filed.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a poor agricultural Coolie and therefore, he could not mobilize such a huge cost of Rs.32,000/-.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. A reading of the order passed by the Special Judge shows that the Special Judge has clearly given reasons for imposing such cost that the victim was aged 15 years at the time of occurrence and subsequently, she gave birth to a child and since she was a minor, the child was given to the custody of Tamil Nadu Cradle Baby Scheme. Now the victim girl is going to school and calling her once again to the Court for giving evidence, would cause her mental agony. Therefore, the learned Special Judge imposed cost of Rs.5,000/- to P.W.1/victim for the mental agony travel expenses. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are parents of the victim and they are Coolie workers and they were already dragged to the Court for some time for chief examination. Considering their economic condition and if they came to Court, they would lose their income and therefore, the learned Special Judge imposed cost of Rs.3,000/- to each of them. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are working in other Districts and they have to come to Court leaving their work and therefore, imposed cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of them. P.W.6 who is the Doctor presently working as an Assistant Professor at a Private Medical College and Hospital at Chennai and P.W.10/ Doctor presently studying higher studies at a Private Medical Hospital at Bangalore and they have to come all the way from Chennai and Bangalore respectively to give evidence and therefore, imposed cost of Rs.5,000/- to each of them. P.W.7 also a Doctor and presently working at Chengalpet District and he has to travel all the way from Chengalpet to give evidence and therefore, imposed cost of Rs.3,000/- to P.W.7. Further P.W.8 and P.W.9 are also working in other Districts and therefore, the special Judge imposed cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of them. In all, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum