Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19948
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
Karthikeyan – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Salem Town, Salem District. – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition | Crl.M.P. No. 1184 of 2025 | Spl. S.C. No. 142 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.J. Jayan
For the Respondents: Mr. Leonardo Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor
The court ruled that recalling a victim for cross-examination is unjustified when sufficient prior opportunity for examination has been provided.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: This petition concerns Section 528 of BNSS and Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act. Facts of the Case reveal the petitioner sought to recall the victim for cross-examination after initial cross-examinations were completed. Findings of Court indicate a thorough review by the Trial Court, justifying the dismissal of the petition. Issues include consideration of recalling the victim, framed by the court in light of contradictions in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that recalling the victim is unnecessary, as sufficient opportunity was given for cross-examination and contradictions can be addressed through other means.
Result: In view of the same, the criminal original petition stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition regarding victim recall. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on contradictions and cross-examination. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. final ruling on the petition. (Para 5) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Karthikeyan ..Petitioner Vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Salem Town, Salem District.
(Crime No. 47 of 2021) ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of BNSS to set aside the order dated 24.11.2025 made in Crl.M.P. No. 1184 of 2025 in Spl. S.C. No. 142 of 2022 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Principal POCSO Court, Salem.
For Petitioner :: Mr.J. Jayan For Respondent :: Mr. Leonardo Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R The petitioner/accused, who is facing trial in Spl. S.C. No.142 of
2022 for offences under Section 342 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, had filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 1184 of 2025 to recall P.W.2/the victim, in order to cross-examine her. The Trial Court, by order dated 24.11.2025, dismissed the said petition as against which the present criminal original petition has been filed.
2(i). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is in this case, P.W.1, the mother of the victim and P.W.2, the victim,were examined in chief on 13.07.2023. On the same day, P.W.2 was cross- examined elaborately. However, P.W.1 was not cross-examined and subsequently, the petitioner had filed C.M.P. No. 911 of 2023 to recall P.W.1 and it was finally allowed on 24.08.2024. Though the recall petition was ordered, P.W.1 was hesitant to appear before the Court and only after bailable warrant was issued and coercive action was taken, she appeared and she was cross-examined in detail.
2(ii). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the evidence of P.W.1 was contradictory to that of the victim P.W.2 with regard to who had informed P.W.1 about the occurrence, which led to the lodging of complaint. P.W.2, in her evidence, had stated that she informed her mother about the occurrence and thereafter, the complaint was lodged while P.W.1 had stated that she was informed by one Sakunthala, who is the wife of her brother and this contradiction has to be proved. The learned counsel would also submit that there is prior enmity between the parties, regarding which suggestions will have to be put forth.
2(iii). It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, the Trial Court dismissing the petition referring to Section 33(5) of POCSO Act is not proper and in support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court dated 28.06.2022 passed in Crl.O.P. (MD) No. 11427 of 2022 (Sankar V. State rep. through The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Town Police Station, Tiruneveli District (Crime No.
274 of 2019))
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent submitted that the case was registered in the year 2021 and almost 5 years have elapsed and the case in Special S.C. No. 142 of 2022 is yet to reach its finality. He would submit that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the year 2022 and the case was taken on file in Special S.C. No. 142 of 2022; P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined in chief on 13.07.2023; on the same day, P.W.2/victim was cross-examined in detail; however, the petitioner deliberately did not cross-examine P.W.1; subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1, the mother of the victim and the same was allowed on 24.08.2024, almost a year thereafter; P.W.1 appeared only on 08.09.2025 and she was cross-examined in detail. Since certain contradictions were elicited in the evidence of P.W.1, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. NO. 1184 of 2025 on 25.09.2025 to recall P.W.2, the victim. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the citation relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable in this case since the pet
