Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
Babu – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Polur All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recall petition filed after trial court dismissal due to missed cross-examination. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. distinguishes precedents; deposition lacks cross-opportunity notation amid family dispute. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. witness contradictions; prosecution opposes as dilatory citing pocso protections. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. inconsistencies and boycott justify recalling witnesses for fair trial. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused in Spl S.C. No.102 of 2023, for the offence under Sections 366, 354B, 376(3), 511, 506(ii) and Section 7 r/w. 8, 6 r/w. 18 of POCSO Act 2012 filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 344 of 2026 to recall PW1 to PW3. The Trial Court by order dated 18.03.2026 dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved over the same, the present petition is filed.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that there are 12 witnesses in this case. All the witnesses, except PW.1 to PW.3, were cross examined then and there without any delay. PW1 is the victim and PW2 and PW3 are the mother and father of the victim respectively, were examined in chief on 23.07.2025. On that day, since there was an Advocate boycott, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not permitted to en
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
