Vijaya Kumar v. State Rep.by

Madras HC14 Jul 2026CRL OP/18278/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

POCSO Act S.33(5) - recall of victim child (P.W.1) for further cross-examination refused - repeated calling of child witness equals secondary victimisation - trial court order upheld - petition under S.528 BNSS 2023 dismissed - Madras HC, CRL OP No.18278 of 2026, 14-07-2026, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. - Crime No.12/2022, AWPS Gingee, Villuppuram.

What did the court decide?

Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act imposes a duty on the Special Court to ensure that the child is not called repeatedly to testify; permitting recall of the victim child for further cross-examination, absent any exceptional circumstance, would amount to subjecting the child to secondary victimisation, and the victim child cannot ordinarily be recalled or subjected to repeated examination or cross-examination before the Court. ¶22

Vijaya Kumar Vs State Rep.by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 18278 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 18278 of 2026

¶6

Vijaya Kumar S/o. Kaasi, No.2/313, Cinimakottakai Street, Melmalaiyanur, Villuppuram District.

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, AWPS Gingee, Villuppuram District. Crime No.12/2022

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1094/2024 in Spl.S.C.No.125/2022 dated 01.04.2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Villupuram.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the

¶15

order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Villupuram.

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRL OP No. 18278 of 2026

¶19

The petitioner, who is the accused, filed an application before the trial

¶20

Court seeking recall of two witnesses, namely, P.W.1, the victim child, and P.W.2, the mother of the victim, for further cross-examination. The trial Court partly allowed the application by permitting the recall of P.W.2. However, insofar as P.W.1 is concerned, the application was dismissed on the ground that the victim child had already been cross-examined in detail.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has subsequently come to know of certain facts and, therefore, seeks permission to further cross-examine P.W.1.

¶22

The primary object of the POCSO Act is to ensure the protection of children from sexual offences. Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act specifically imposes a duty on the Special Court to ensure that the child is not called repeatedly to testify before the Court. Permitting the recall of the victim child for further cross-examination, in the absence of any exceptional circumstance, would amount to subjecting the child to secondary victimisation. The victim child cannot ordinarily be recalled or subjected to repeated examination or cross-examination before the Court.

¶23

__________ Page2 of 4

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

CRL OP No. 18278 of 2026

¶26