Madras High Court
Jagadeesan vs The State; Represented By on 25 February, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.4956 of 2019
Jagadeesan ... Petitioner
Vs
The State; represented by:
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Melmaruvathur,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondent
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the
order in Crl.M.P.No.2431 of 2018, dated 24.12.2018 in S.C.No.16 of 2017 on the
file of Mahila (Sessions) Judge, Chengalpattu.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Magesh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.2431 of 2018, dated 24.12.2018 in S.C.No.16 of 2017 on the file of Sessions Judge of [Mahila Court], Chengalpattu. http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that PW1 to PW13 were cross-examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated for the offences under Sections 354(D)(1)(i), 354(B), 376(i), 506 (i) IPC and r/w Sections 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act'] and he has been disputing the age of the victim girl. PW12-School Head Master was examined and marked school certificate to the effect that the victim girl was aged about 18 years. Therefore, he wants to cross examine those witness to determine the age of the victim girl.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that now the matter is posted for arguments and the evidence on the side of prosecution was also closed and evidence on the defence side was also closed. At this stage, it cannot be reopened again.
4. Heard Mr.G.Magesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
5. It is seen that the petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 354(D)(1)(i), 354(B), 376(i), 506 (i) IPC and r/w Sections 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and PW1 to PW8 http://www.judis.nic.in 3 were already cross-examined by the petitioner and in respect of PW9 to PW13, they were not cross-examined and also they did not file any petition before the Trial Court. The Trial Court had already closed the prosecution side evidence and the matter was posted for arguments. It is also seen that the PW12 is the School Headmaster through whom the School Certificate was marked to prove the age of the victim girl. Therefore, in respect of proving the age of the victim girl, she has to be necessarily cross-examined by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds that the petitioner may be given one more opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses PW9 to PW13.
6. In view of the above reasons, the order in Crl.M.P.No.2431 of 2018, dated 24.12.2018 in S.C.No.16 of 2017 passed by the learned Mahila Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to cross- examine the witnesses PW9 to PW13 and the Trial Court is directed to issue summons to the effect that the entire cross-examination shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on payment of necessary charges. If the petitioner fails to cross-examine the witnesses PW9 to PW13 within a stipulated time, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, msm
5. With above directions, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
25.02.2019 Note: Issue Order copy on 27.02.2019.
Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order msm To
1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Melmaruvathur, Kancheepuram District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.4956 of 2019 http://www.judis.nic.in