##PAGE1##

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6995 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 09.04.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

Crl.O.P(MD)No.6995 of 2026 and

Crl.M.P(MD) No.7537 of 2026

Veeraiyan @ Raja ... Petitioner Vs

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,

Thanjavur District.

Crime No.2 of 2025) ... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the the order dated 16.02.2026 passed in Cr.M.P.No.37 of 2026 in Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO

Act, Thanjavur District.

For Petitioner : M/s.Shunmalar M

For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/05/2026 01:24:23 pm )

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6995 of 2026

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the accused persons in

Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Thanjavur District, challenging the order dated 16.02.2026 passed under Section 348 BNSS, wherein, the

request of the petitioner for recalling P.W.1 has been rejected.

2. A perusal of the records reveal that P.W.1 was chief examined on

06.01.2026 and on the said date, the petitioner's legal aid counsel was present. Though he has raised objections with regard to the question raised in chief examination, he had not cross examined the victim child. The order passed by the trial Court clearly reveals that the legal aid counsel has not cross examined the victim child on the ground that the accused persons would like

to cross examine the victim child through her private counsel.

3. P.W.2 – has been chief examined on 21.01.2026 and P.W.3 was chief

examined on 06.02.2026. On the same day, they have been cross examined by the private counsel of the petitioner. The present application has been filed by

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/05/2026 01:24:23 pm )

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6995 of 2026

the accused persons on 21.01.2026 seeking to recall P.W.1 for cross examination. This application has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the legal aid counsel, though present before the Court on 06.01.2026, has not chosen to cross examine P.W.1 and therefore, the petitioner having lost his opportunity to cross examine P.W.1, cannot be given

one more opportunity to cross examine P.W.1.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused

the materials available on record.

5. A perusal of the order impugned in the petition clearly reveals that

the petitioner was represented only through a Legal Aid Counsel. Though the Legal Aid Counsel was present on 06.01.2026, and had raised objection with regard to certain questions raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor in the chief examination, he has not chosen to cross examine the victim child on the ground that he had not received any instructions for cross examination.

Therefore, it is clear that there is no fault on the part of the accused persons.

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/05/2026 01:24:23 pm )

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6995 of 2026

6. The accused has engaged his private counsel and they have cross

examined P.W.2 and P.W.3. Immediately, on 21.01.2026, the present

application has been filed seeking to recall P.W.1.

7. In view of the above said facts, it is clear that non-cross examination

of P.W.1 on 06.01.2026 is not at the fault of the accused person. Therefore, one more opportunity to be granted to the accused person to cross examine P.W.1. Therefore, the order dated 16.02.2026 is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to cross examine the victim child on a single day. No further opportunity should be granted to the petitioner for cross examination

of P.W.1.

8. With the above said observation, this Criminal Original Petition

stands allowed. Consequently