Trial court cannot order special educator for POCSO victim solely on psychiatric report without prior competency assessment under Section 118 Evidence Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.22663 of 2025 N.Om Prakasam ... Petitioner vs.

1.The State rep. By The Station House Officer, Bohour Police Station, Puducherry.

(Crime No.133 of 2024).

2.Mrs.K.Adhilakshmi ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. r/w. 528 of BNSS, to set aside the docket order dated 22.10.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court exclusively to deal with offences under POCSO Act, Puducherry in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhakaran For R1 : Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

ORDER The petitioner/accused in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2025 challenging the docket order dated 22.10.2025 filed this petition.

2.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is facing trial for offence under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), on allegation penetrative sexual assault committed on the victim from July 2023 to 04.11.2023 and a case registered in Crime No.133 of 2024, thereafter charge sheet filed. The Trial Court on 07.08.2025 issued summons for appearance of LW1 and LW2, the mother of the victim and the victim girl for examination on 15.09.2025. On that day the witnesses not present, the case was adjourned to 07.10.2025 and again adjourned to 22.10.2025 and on that day, without any petition either from the prosecution or the accused, the Trial Court suo motu on its own passed the impugned order recording that on perusal of Medico-legal examination report there is no major mental illness and in psychiatric assessment report, it is mentioned that child is oriented to time/place and person, the victim child appeared predominantly euthymic, the child occasionally would not understand the question and had to be repeated, further child appeared very guarded and hence, it is necessary to examine the victim with the help of a Psychiatric Doctor/Special Educator by 30.10.2025.

3.The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case the victim child, her mother and family members examined, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the respondent police found no reason or any need to seek assistance of Special Educator. Likewise, the Magistrate who recorded 164 statement found no infirmity on the victim child and Section 26 of POCSO Act was not invoked. He further submitted that statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C./183 of BNSS recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Puducherry on 18.12.2024 and competency of examination before recording of testimony done and proceeded to record the statement of witness, and thereafter, given a certificate that the statement of the victim child recorded as stated by her and further certified that the victim child was able to understand the proceedings throughout the entire proceedings. Thus, there was no doubt in the competency of the victim giving statement both before the Police and before the Magistrate. This being so, merely on the Psychiatric assessment report dated 06.11.2024 the Trial Court passing the impugned order is not proper. Further the Trial Court failed to look into the fact that psychiatric assessment evaluation was on 05.11.2024 and 164 statement was recorded on 18.12.2024, nearly after a month of psychiatric assessment report and the Magistrate found that the witness was fit to give statement on her own. This being so, the Trial Court passing the impugned order is on a misreading of the word “Euthymic” and passing the impugned order is not proper.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further refe