High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.01.2025Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 2024K.Kannappan... Petitioner Vs.The State Rep. by its(Inspector of Police)All Women Police Station (AWPS)Cheyyar TownCheyyar TalukTiruvannamalai District ... RespondentPrayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1293 of 2024 in Special S.C.No.5 of 2023 by the Special Judge, Special Court for Cases Exclusive Trial under POCSO Act at Tiruvannamalai.For Petitioner : Mr.L.GavaskarFor Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 2024ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1293 of 2024 in Special S.C.No.5 of 2023 by the Special Judge, Special Court for Cases Exclusive Trial under POCSO Act at Tiruvannamalai.2. The case of the petitioner is that based on the complaint given by the mother of the victim girl, the respondent police registered the case in Crime No.9 of the 2020 against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 506(2) IPC read with Sections 3(a), 4, 5(l), 5(j) (ii) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The respondent police after completion of investigation, filed the final report and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.5 of 2023 by the Special Judge, Special Court for Cases Exclusive Trial under POCSO Act at Tiruvannamalai. Thereafter, the prosecution witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined in chief. However, the petitioner could not cross examine them. Hence, the 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 2024petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1293 of 2024 under section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the prosecution witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.10 for cross examination. Though the learned Special Judge allowed the petition, imposed cost of Rs.32,000/- towards cost for the witnesses to be paid on or before 19.09.2024. Since the petitioner could not arrange said amount, he filed a petition in Crl.M.P.SR.No.1677 of 2024 on 19.09.2024 to extend the time to deposit the said cost, whereas the trial Court declined to entertain the extension petition and as such, dismissed the recall petition on the ground that the conditional order was not complied with. Hence, the present revision is filed.3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a poor agricultural Coolie and therefore, he could not mobilize such a huge cost of Rs.32,000/-.4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.5. A reading of the order passed by the Special Judge shows that the Special Judge has clearly given reasons for imposing such cost that the victim 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 2024was aged 15 years at the time of occurrence and subsequently, she gave birth to a child and since she was a minor, the child was given to the custody of Tamil Nadu Cradle Baby Scheme. Now the victim girl is going to school and calling her once again to the Court for giving evidence, would cause her mental agony. Therefore, the learned Special Judge imposed cost of Rs.5,000/- to P.W.1/victim for the mental agony travel expenses. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are parents of the victim and they are Coolie workers and they were already dragged to the Court for some time for chief examination. Considering their economic condition and if they came to Court, they would lose their income and therefore, the learned Special Judge imposed cost of Rs.3,000/- to each of them. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are working in other Districts and they have to come to Court leaving their work and therefore, imposed cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of them. P.W.6 who is the Doctor presently working as an Assistant Professor at a Private Medical College and Hospital at Chennai and P.W.10/ Doctor presently studying higher studies at a Private Medical Hospital at Bangalore and they 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 2024have to come all the way from Chennai and Bangalore respectively to give evidence and therefore, imposed cost of Rs.5,000/- to each of them. P.W.7 also a Doctor and presently working at Chengalpet District and he has to travel all the way from Chengalpet to give evidence and therefore, imposed cost of Rs.3,000/- to P.W.7. Further P.W.8 and P.W.9 are also working in other Districts and therefore, the special Judge imposed cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of them. In all, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.32,000/- before the trial Court towards cost to the witnesses.6. Now the petitioner is challenging only the cost imposed by the trial Court.7. A perusal of the records shows that the prosecution witnesses were examined in chief however, the petitioner did not cross examine them. Subsequently the petitioner filed a petition to recall the witnesses invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge, in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner, allowed the petition, however, considering the fact that the 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 2024witnesses have to spend some time leaving their work/job to come to the Court for giving evidence, imposed cost towards cost to the witnesses. The order of the Special Judge is well fonded reasons. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and also this Court, time and against has held that in POCSO Cases, the witnesses especially the victim or their witnesses should not be dragged unnecessarily. 9. Even Section 35 of POCSO Act says that evidence of the victim should recorded within a period of thirty days and the trial has to be completed within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance, as follows;(1) The evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of thirty days of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence and reasons for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the Special Court.(2) The Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 202410. The present case in S.C.No.5 of 2023 is pending from 2023. Despite fair opportunity was given to the petitioner, he failed to utilize the same. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Special Judge. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.08.01.2025Index : Yes / No Speaking Order: Yes / NoNeutral Citation Case : Yes/Noksa-27/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 2024To1. The Special Judge, Special Court for Cases Exclusive Trial under POCSO Act Tiruvannamalai.2. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station (AWPS) Cheyyar Town Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District 3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 2024P.VELMURUGAN. J.Ksa-2Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 202408.01.20259/9