IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI
Gurusamy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In – Respondent
##PAGE1##
CRL OP(MD). No.2240 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 05/02/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI
CRL OP(MD). No.2240 of 2026
Gurusamy ... Petitioner
Vs
State of Tamilnadu Rep by
Inspector of Police, Awps-Andipatti,
Theni District.
Cr.No.35/2023. ... Respondent
PRAYER :-
To call for the records and set aside the order dated 06.01.2026 passed
in Cr.MP.No.01/2026 in Spl.SC No.03/2024 on the file of the learned
court of Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under
POCSO Act, Theni, Theni District.
For Petitioner : Mr. P.Senguttuarasan,
Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 08:39:01 pm )
##PAGE2##CRL OP(MD). No.2240 of 2026
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records and
set aside the order dated 06.01.2026 passed in Cr.MP.No.01/2026 in
Spl.SC No.03/2024 on the file of the learned court of Principal Special
Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Theni, Theni
District.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is the sole accused in the case which is pending trial in Spl.S.C.No.3 of
2024. He had filed a petition under Section 348 of BNS seeking to recall
PW.2 and PW.12 for cross examination. However, the same was
negatived and rejected by the learned trial court. Seeking indulgence of
this Court, the present petition came to be filed.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent, on instructions, submitted that P.W.2, who is sought to be
recalled for cross examination is the Victim and P.W.12 is the
investigating officer. Both the witnesses were examined in chief before
the trial Court on 24.02.2025. But the learned counsel appeared for the
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 08:39:01 pm )
##PAGE3##CRL OP(MD). No.2240 of 2026
petitioner before the trial Court, failed to cross examine them on the
same day. Having not preferred to cross examine both the witnesses on
the same day of examination in chief, now they preferred a petition to
recall the witnesses. Under Section 348 of BNS, it is a settled
proposition of law that in POCSO matters, the victim should not be
subjected to appear before the trial court for deposing evidence again and
again and pointed out that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and
pressed for dismissal of this Criminal Original Petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
5. A plain reading of the impugned order would make it clear that
PW-2, the victim child was examined in chief on 24.02.2025. She has
clearly deposed that the petitioner had committed penetrative sexual
assault. But she was not cross examined by the petitioner on the same
day, whereas PW-12, one Veeramma who is the mother of PW-2 victim
child, was cross examined on 24.02.2025 that is on the date when the
victim was examined in chief. This shows that the learned trial Court had
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 08:39:01 pm )
##PAGE4##CRL OP(MD). No.2240 of 2026
properly conducted the trial and that sufficient opportunity was availed
by the defense to cross examine PW-2, but he had preferred not to cross
PW-2 on the said date. Further, the learned trial court has also observed
that the present petition has been filed after a prolonged gap of 10
months from the date of chief examination and only to protract the
proceedings the present application has been filed and the same was
promptly dismissed by the trial Court.
6. It is needless to state that as per the mandate of Section 33(5) of
the POCSO Act 2012, a victim child cannot be repeatedly called before
the court, as it would amount to second victimization. Accordingly, I
donot find any demerits in the trial court decision to negate the
petitioner's application seeking permission to recall PW-2 for cross
examination.
7. However, to ensure fair trial, the petitioner's application seeking
to recall PW 10
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.