The Court emphasized that once a victim attains majority, protections under the POCSO Act cease, reaffirming the fundamental right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes unrestricted cross-examination.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision has been filed as against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.860 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.31 of 2021 dated 16.07.2025 on the file of Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, thereby allowing the petition filed by the victim under Section 265(3) read with Section 530(iii) of BNSS Act to record her evidence by audio and video conferencing in strict adherence to the Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2019.

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the victim girl visited India at the age of about 10 years, the petitioner committed sexual harassment. Hence, the complaint.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.20 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 . After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in Spl.S.C.No.31 of 2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376AB Sections 5(m) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4. Pending trial, the second respondent filed a petition seeking permission to record her evidence by audio and video electronic means as per Video Conferencing Rules, 2019, on the ground that she has been put through severe mental trauma and anxiety. She has various health issues and she has been suffering from severe eczema, ocular health issues and various respiratory issues, for which, she also had to suspend her studies. She has no good health to travel to India. Further, she does not want to travel to India for giving evidence which will traumatize her further. It was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is none other than the grand father's brother of the victim. The impugned order permitting the victim to record her evidence through audio and video conferencing means infringes and curtails the right to fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petition seeking permission itself is not maintainable. The provisions under Section 265 of BNSS deals with trials by Magistrate's Court and lays down procedure for warrant cases which deals with less serious offences. That apart, the said application was filed without any vakalat and as such, whether the said application was filed with the knowledge and consent of the second respondent is in question. In fact, the petitioner obtained the order in Crl.M.P.No.679 of 2025 dated 13.05.2025, thereby directing the physical appearance of the victim before the Trial Court as witness for effective cross examination. Instead of challenging the said order, the victim came forward with an application seeking permission to record her evidence through audio and video electronic means. Further, now she had attained majority and she is aged about more than 18 years. Therefore, as per the definition of 'child' as contemplated under the POCSO Act, the provisions under Section 33(2) of the POCSO Act will not be applicable to the victim. Further, the victim also failed to prove, with any medical record, to show that she is physically ill and she is unable to appear before the Trial Court for letting in evidence. The physical presence of witness during chief examination is crucial for the Court to observe their demeanour, which is essential for assessing the credibility and truthfulness of the testimony. Therefore, the evidence recorded through video conferencing would deprive the fundamental right of the accused to effectively cross examine the witness and would prejudice