SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
Vetri @ Manikandan – Appellant
Versus
The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Kodavasal Police Station – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.31129 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.K.Shreenidhi for Mr.G.Prabhu
For the Respondents:Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

The right to cross-examine witnesses is essential to ensure justice in criminal proceedings, particularly under POCSO Act circumstances.

Headnote:Criminal procedure under Section 311 Cr.P.C. allows recall of witnesses for cross-examination when necessary for the interests of justice. The petitioner, accused of serious offenses under the POCSO Act and represented legally, sought to recall witnesses but was initially denied. The Court found that preventing the petitioner from cross-examining the witnesses would cause serious prejudice. The core issue was whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to cross-examine non-victim witnesses. The Court concluded that the petitioner deserved one opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses (except victim/PW1) but denied the recall of the victim for this purpose. Thus, the Criminal Original Petition was partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. the circumstances leading to the petition and the petitioner's claims. (Para 3)
2. respondent's arguments against granting recall of witnesses. (Para 4)
3. court's perspective on the necessity of cross-examination. (Para 5)
4. final ruling allowing partial relief on the petition. (Para 6)

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tiruvarur, dated 13.03.2025, in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2021, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C (corresponding to Section 348 of BNSS).

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

2.1. The petitioner is an accused facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2021 before the Fast Track Court, Tiruvarur, for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) of IPC and Sections 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, in Crime No.1531 of 2020, on the file of the respondent Police. 2.2. In the said case, the petitioner/accused filed a petition in M.P.No.1 of 2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking to recall witnesses PW1 to PW14. The learned Sessions Judge, finding that the case has been pending from the year 2021 and that the petition was filed when the main case was posted for further proceedings, dismissed the petition, vide order dated 13.03.2025. Aggrieved over the same, the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was not given a proper legal assistance, the trial Court had engaged the services of the District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvarur and a Legal Aid Counsel representing the petitioner had filed the petition to recall witnesses PW1 to PW14. However, the trial Court had dismissed the petition without considering the reasons put forth by the petitioner. She further submitted that the petitioner/accused is facing trial for serious offences under POCSO Act and that the presumption under Section 29 of the Act operates against the petitioner. Therefore, if the petitioner is not given a chance to rebut the presumption against him by cross-examining the witnesses, it will be putting him to a great predicament. Hence, she prayed to set aside the order dated 13.03.2025.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that despite several opportunities being granted, the petitioner failed to cross-examine the witnesses. He further submitted that there is a bar under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, which directs the Special Court to ensure that the victim child is not repeatedly called to testify in the court. He also submitted that all other witnesses in this case are from the local area and that the respondent would be able to produce them on a date fixed by the trial Court.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record, it is seen from the records that the petitioner was represented by a Legal Aid Counsel and he has filed a petition to recall the witnesses. This Court is of the view that if the petitioner is not given a chance to cross-examine the witnesses other than the victim/PW1, it would cause serious prejudice to him. Therefore, the petitioner should be given one opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, except the victim/PW1.

6. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition stands partly allowed. The petition, in so far as it relates to recalling the victim/PW1, is dismissed. The trial Court shall recall PW2 to PW14 and fix a date for their cross-examination. The petitioner shall ensure that all the said witnesses are cross-examined on the same day of their appearance before the trial Court. In the event of the petitioner not cross-examining the witnesses, no further opportunity shall be granted to him.

13.11.2025 ham Neutral Citation:Yes/No Note : Issue order copy today (13.11.2025)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top