M SURESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this petition to set aside the order dated 25.08.2015 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 276 of 2015 in S.S.C. No. 10 of 2013 on the file of the Mahalir Court (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thanjavur.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is facing criminal trial in S.S.C. No. 10 of 2013 for the offence under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and he filed an application to prove the age of the victim girl. Dr. Malarvizhi has taken x-ray and even though the x-ray and report was filed, the same were not marked and hence, the petitioner filed an application to permit him to examine the said Dr. Malarvizhi and also to mark the documents along with the particulars with regard to the admission of the victim girl as inpatient from 19.08.2013 to 22.08.2013. After hearing both sides, the trial Court has allowed the application in respect of production of inpatient records of the victim girl, whereas, dismissed the petition in respect of call for the doctor Malarvizhi and produce the documents viz., x-ray report. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present application.

(3.) The learned counsel would further submit that since the birth certificate has been filed as Ex. P10 before the trial Court, the trial Court has dismissed the same. As per the medical report, it was stated that the individual has completed 18 years and not completed the age of 20 and hence, she has given consent for sexual intercourse. Therefore, to prove his defence, the examination of Dr. Malarvizhi and the marking of x-ray report is essential and that factum was not considered by the trial Court and hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of the trial Court. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Natasha Singh v. CBI (State), 2013 2 LW(Cri) 384 and submitted that adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right and hence, an opportunity must be given to the petitioner/accused to put forth his defence and hence, he prayed for allowing of the application.