logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7030 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : CRL. OP.(MD). Nos. 21030 & 21031 of 2026 & Crl. MP.(MD). Nos. 19987 & 19990 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. VIJAYAKUMAR
Parties : Thanushkodi @ Thanikodi Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Public Sector Special Court, Theni & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M/s. P. Nivithaa Jothi, M/s. Isaac Chambers, Advocates. For the Respondents: B. Arun, Government Advocate (Crl.side).
Date of Judgment : 25-09-2026
Head Note :-
BNSS Act - Section 528 -
Judgment :-

(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, to set aside the dismissal orders passed by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Theni in Crl.MP.Nos. 354 & 355 of 2026 in Spl.S.C.No.161 of 2025 dated 18.08.2026.)

Common Order

1. The accused in Spl.S.C.No.161 of 2025 pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Theni, has come forward with these Criminal Original Petitions, assailing the orders of dismissal passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.354 and 355 of 2026, dated 18.08.2026.

2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 9(m), 10, 11(1) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution has cited as many as 14 witnesses. When the matter stood posted for the examination of the Investigating Officer, the petitioner filed the present two applications. Crl.M.P.No.354 of 2026 came to be filed praying to summon and examine L.W.12, whose examination had been dispensed with by the prosecution. L.W.12 is a woman police constable, whose role was confined to producing the victim girl before the Court for the purpose of recording her statement. Treating her as a formal witness, the prosecution chose to dispense with her evidence. The trial Court dismissed Crl.M.P.No.354 of 2026, holding that L.W.12 is only a formal witness and that she had no part to play in the investigation.

4. Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2026 came to be filed praying to subject the mobile phone of P.W.9 (L.W.13) to forensic examination.

5. The case of the prosecution is that, at the time of examination of the victim girl, the CCTV camera in the police station was under repair and therefore, P.W.9, a woman police constable, recorded the complaint of the victim in her personal mobile phone. P.W.9 was subjected to elaborate crossexamination by the accused. The petitioner has now sought for production of the said mobile phone and for forwarding the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory. This application also came to be dismissed by the trial Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution ought not to have dispensed with the examination of L.W.12 and that she ought to have been examined before the trial Court. The learned counsel would further contend that, when P.W.9 claims to have recorded the statement of the victim girl in the police station on her personal mobile phone, the said phone ought to have been subjected to forensic examination. It was urged that, unless both the applications are allowed, the petitioner would be put to serious prejudice.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. It is not open to the accused to compel the prosecution to examine a particular witness merely because his or her name finds place in the list of witnesses. In the case on hand, L.W.12 is a woman police constable whose role was limited to producing the victim girl before the Court for recording her statement, and she had no role whatsoever in the investigation. That being so, the prayer of the petitioner to compel the examination of L.W.12 cannot be sustained in law.

9. P.W.9 recorded the statement of the victim in the police station at the time when the investigation was set in motion. As the CCTV camera was under repair, she recorded the statement on her personal mobile phone in July 2025. She has been extensively cross-examined by the accused. The recording has been downloaded from her mobile phone onto a pen-drive and a certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 has also been obtained. In such circumstances, the prayer to once again direct the personal mobile phone of P.W.9 to be subjected to forensic examination is nothing but an attempt to protract the proceedings.

10. This Court is also mindful of the fact that these two applications came to be filed at the fag end of the trial, when the case was posted for the examination of the Investigating Officer. It is therefore evident that the applications have been filed without any legally acceptable reason and only with a view to prolong the proceedings. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications.

11. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal