The court will not exercise its discretion to recall a witness for further cross-examination when the chain of evidence is clearly established, the DNA report confirms paternity, and the request appears intended to protract trial proceedings at the stage of final arguments.

PRAYER

This criminal original petition is preferred under section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 seeking to call for the records in Crl.MP.No.464 of 2026 in Spl.SC.No.121 of 2021 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai and set aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 passed in Crl.MP.No.464 of 2026 in Spl.SC.No.121 of 2021 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai or pass any or other such orders that this court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

The petitioner accused who is facing trial for the alleged offences under section 6 read with section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act and section 376(3) of IPC, challenging the order passed by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.464 of 2026 in Spl.S.C.No.121 of 2021, dated 15.04.2026, has filed the instant petition.

2.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has not followed the procedure while dismissing the abovesaid miscellaneous petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the wife of the petitioner was examined as D.W.1 on 25.03.2026 and the defence side documents were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3. After the examination of P.W.11 through video conferencing on 28.01.2026 and the examination of D.W.1 on 25.03.2026, new material facts have been noticed with regard to the potency of the petitioner / accused and the DNA test report. These facts are essential and relevant to substantiate the defence but could not be brought on record earlier. Hence, it is necessary to recall P.W.10 for re-examination.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has strongly opposed this petition and submitted that P.W.10 was examined in chief on 09.01.2026 and was cross examined on the same day. The evidence of P.W.10 is that she has handed over the foetus to the Forensic Science Laboratory, deposited the FTA cards before the court after obtaining the blood samples from the victim child and accused and thereafter again, pursuant to the court order, has handed over the FTA card to the forensic science laboratory. Hence all the procedures have been followed. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the trial court had considered the evidence of P.W.10 and the materials available and found that as per the orders of the investigating officer, PW.10 had handed over the preserved foetus to the forensic science laboratory and then produced the victim child before the doctor, witnessed the collection of blood samples from her and received the FTA card with blood sample and deposited the same before the court and after the order of the court, P.W.10 has handed over the FTA Cards with blood samples to the forensic science laboratory. The DNA test report dated 22.01.2021 has been produced. The DNA report confirms that the gender of the foetus is male and Mr.Balu @ Balraj, who is the petitioner herein is the biological father of the foetus. The DNA test report has been filed with annexures showing the STR locus tested and Genotype detected. Hence, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that there is no ambiguity or any doubt in the report. The learned Government Advocate has further submitted that D.W.1 being the wife of the petitioner/accused, in order to save her husband, had deposed as if her husband is an impotent but the medical report confirms otherwise and therefore, the learned Government Advocate seeks for dismissal of the instant petition.

4.A counter affidavit, dated 08.06.2026 has been filed by the respondent police. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit a