ORDER : These two petitions are filed by the petitioner to set aside the orders dated 12.12.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai in Crl.MP.Nos.1934 of 2019 and 1935 of 2019, which were filed to re-open the case of the prosecution and to re-call PW1 to PW3, PW5, PW7, PW9 and PW11 respectively. 2. The case of the prosecution against the present petitioner / sole accused in SC.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai in nutshell is as follows: The petitioner was the Head Master of Panchayat Union Elementary School, Periyanarikottai, Sivagangai. One "X" (victim) was studying IVth standard during the alleged occurrence in the said School. She was staying in an Orphanage Home "Jebathottam Mahimai Illam" along with her younger sister "Y" who was studying IInd standard in the same school. Their paternal grandmother put both "X" and "Y" in the home as their mother left the matrimonial home. On 06.04.2015, at about 03.00 pm, the victim "X" was directed by the accused (Head Master of the school) to clean the toilet. Similarly he directed one "A" studying IVth standard to clean the garden area. When "X" went inside the toilet, the accused followed her and allegedly committed rape on her. At that time, since someone pelted stone on the accused's head, he came out of the toilet and questioned "A" and also threatened her by pinching her thighs. The accused also hit "A" on her head with his knuckle and threatened both "X" and "A" with dire consequences, if they reveal the incident. Since "X" was having severe pain in her private parts, she was crying the whole day and when she was enquired by her friends "A", "B", "C", "D" and "E", she narrated the entire incident that took place inside the toilet. According to "X", the victim the accused used to molest her friends "A" to "E". Thereafter, since she was suffering from chicken pox, she was sent back to her paternal grandmother's house at Keelapoongudi Village. When "X" was crying out of pain in her private parts, her grandmother inquisitively asked her the reason and "X" had to narrate the entire sequence of events. Consequently, the grandmother of "X" lodged a complaint against the present accused before the All Women Police Station, Sivagangai. When "X" was crying out of pain in her private parts, her grandmother inquisitively asked her the reason and "X" had to narrate the entire sequence of events. Consequently, the grandmother of "X" lodged a complaint against the present accused before the All Women Police Station, Sivagangai. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station registered First Information Report in Crime No.6 of 2015 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 5(f)(m)(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The statement of all the victim children were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter, the children were sent for medical examination. After concluding the investigation, a final report in SC.No.15 of 2015 was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 6 read with 5(f)(l)(m)(o)(p) and Section 10 read with 9(f)(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with 3(1)(XI) and (XII) of the Scheduled Castes / Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Ordinance Amendment Act, 1989 and rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. 3. The prosecution after examining all the witnesses closed the evidence on their side and the accused was also questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai after hearing arguments on both sides, reserved the case for Judgment and the case is still pending. 4. The important aspect in the instant case is that all the victim children and their respective guardians turned hostile to the prosecution and they were all cross examined by Mrs.Indragandhi, Special Public Prosecutor with the leave of the Court. The accused also cross examined the victims. Subsequently, the prosecution came to know that the accused and his wife, who is also a school teacher in collusion with Mrs.Indhragandhi, the Special Public Prosecutor coerced all the witnesses to turn hostile to the prosecution and therefore, First Information Report in Crime No.4 of 2020 of All Women Police Station was registered against the present accused for the offences punishable under Sections 195(A), 201 and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 (2) (VI) of the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Subsequently, after investigation, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Devakottai Sub Division filed a final report against the present petitioner / accused, his wife and Mrs.Indhragandhi, Special Public Prosecutor in Special SC.No.39 of 2020 before the Special Judge (PCR Act Cases), Sivagangai for the offences punishable under Sections 195 (A), 201, 506(i) and 214 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In the meanwhile, Mrs.Indhragandhai, was removed from the post of Special Public Prosecutor, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai and in her place one Mr.N.Suresh Kumar was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor. He immediately filed two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions 1934 of 2019 and 1935 of 2019 before the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai to re-open and re-call the witnesses as mentioned above and the petitions were allowed, after hearing both sides, by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai. Aggrieved over the said orders, the present Criminal Original Petitions are filed. 5. Mr.K.Navaneetharaja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions, (i) Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 461 , (ii) Gayes vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kulasekaranpattinam Police Station, Thoothukudi District reported in 2018 2 LW (Crl) 721 and (iii) The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai City-IV, Alandur, Chennai-16 vs. Thiru.N. Seenivasagan in Crl.OP.Nos.7694 and 7816 of 2019 of Madras High Court and contended that, (a) The victim children as well as other adult witnesses did not inform the police about the threat to their lives at the instance of the petitioner and Mrs.Indhragandhi, Special Public Prosecutor, immediately after the alleged occurrence. (b) The trial court had the opportunity to appreciate the demeanor of witnesses and when nothing is recorded by the Court in the deposition of witnesses, the prosecution in the instant case is not justified in filing a petition to re-call the witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure and that too after a lapse of three years and when the case was reserved for judgment. (c) The court below by allowing the petitions, has virtually permitted the prosecution to conduct trial afresh from the beginning. (c) The court below by allowing the petitions, has virtually permitted the prosecution to conduct trial afresh from the beginning. (d) It is well settled law that the power conferred under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be invoked by the Courts with great caution and circumspection. (e) A reading of the Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides for the order of examination, would show that the witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross examined and thereafter (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. In so far as re-examination is concerned, the said provision specifically provides that re-examination shall be directed to explanation of matters referred to in the cross examination and therefore, the orders passed by the Court below is arbitrary and illegal. (f) The re-examination of the witnesses must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the parties. 6. Per contra, Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) contended that the trial court after considering the subsequent developments and also the serious nature of the offences, allowed the petitions to re-open the case of the prosecution and to re-call the witnesses. His further contention is that this is an unfortunate case, where the children studying in a primary school were not only abandoned by their parents but were also raped and sexually assaulted by the present accused who also happened to be the Head Master of the School. He would further contend that these children are staying in an Orphanage Home and that their guardians are from poor strata of the society. His contention is that all these children were coerced by the accused, his wife and Mrs.Indhragandhi, the then Special Public Prosecutor to turn hostile to the prosecution and the subsequent complaint given by the victim "X" and the final report in Special SC.No.39 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court (PCR Act Cases), Sivagangai would clearly reveal as to how these children were coerced to turn hostile. It is his further contention that after removing Mrs.Indhragandhi, the then Special public prosecutor, a new Public Prosecutor, namely, Mr.N.Suresh Kumar was posted in the Court and he filed these two applications before the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, after assessing the entire situation. It is his further contention that after removing Mrs.Indhragandhi, the then Special public prosecutor, a new Public Prosecutor, namely, Mr.N.Suresh Kumar was posted in the Court and he filed these two applications before the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, after assessing the entire situation. He also drew the attention of this Court to the following decisions, (i) S.R.Sinha vs. Mrinal Sengupta and others reported in (2007) 11 SCC 802 , (ii) Sheikh Jumman vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 12 SCC 486 and (iii) Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2018) 11 SCC 129 and contended that, (i) In the interests of fair trial, the witnesses can be examined again even after the conclusion of the trial. (ii) If the Criminal justice system has to be effective, crime should not go unpunished and victims of crimes are also well looked after. (iii) The basic aim of any good legal system is to do justice, which is to ensure that injustice is also not meted out to any citizen and this calls for balancing the interests of the accused as well as the victims, which in turn depends on fair trial. (iv) For achieving this fair trial, which is the solemn function of the Courts, role of witnesses assumes great significance and this fair trial is possible only when the witnesses are truthful as they are the eyes and ears of the court. (v) No prejudice would be caused to the accused if the witnesses are called and examined by the prosecution as it is for the Court to appreciate the evidence adduced by the witnesses. (vi) In order to enable the Court to find out the truth and render a just decision, Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been enacted, wherein, any Court by exercising its discretionary authority, at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceedings can summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined, who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in disputes; because if judgments happen to be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive and speculative presentation of facts, the ends of justice would be defeated. (vii) There is no bar against the examination of a witness even at a stage subsequent to the recording of the statement of the accused in exercise of powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and what is important is that if the interests of justice so demands and a witness is required to be re-called, the inconvenience that may be caused of re-calling witnesses for cross examination, should not by itself be a ground to refrain from re-calling the witness or examining a witness. 7. Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant contended that the accused, his wife and Mrs.Indhragandhi, the then Special Public Prosecutor coerced all the children to turn hostile and infact the children were called to the chambers of Mrs.Indhragandhi, Special Public Prosecutor on the date of their examination and threatened by Mrs.Indhragandhi in the presence of the accused Murugan. He also relied on the following decisions in, (i) Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh and another vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 158 and (ii) Kathiresan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District reported in (2016) 1 MLJ (Crl) 325 and contended that, it is well known that sexual abuse can cause intense feelings of embarrassment, fear and immediately humiliation and the victim of sexual abuse is terrified that she would not be believed. The victim often feels trapped between wanting the abuse to stop and being terrified of other people learning what has been done to her and that fear would keep her silent while the abuse is going on for years, after it has come to an end. His further contention is that in order to meet the ends of justice, the witnesses should be re-called and examined by the prosecution. 8. In the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav (cited supra), during the course of trial, the key witness resiled from his earlier statement made before the police and gave a different version as to how he sustained injuries and thereafter, another altercation took place between the complainant and his sons on one hand and his brother and his sons on the other and again a complaint was lodged. Thereafter, one of the victims filed a petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling and re-examining himself on the ground that he was threatened and coerced by the accused to turn hostile to the prosecution. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if really there was threat to the life of the victim at the instance of the accused, he should have lodged a complaint immediately and that since no complaint was given by him immediately after such coercion and undue influence meted out to him, the trial court is not justified in allowing the petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further held that the victim also had every opportunity to mention the same to the learned trial Judge or the learned Prosecutor or Prosecution Agency. 9. According to the learned counsel appearing for the accused, this is a similar case as that of the case on hand. In my opinion, the allegations made in the instant case is under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and all the victims are minor children. Further, the children and their guardians are from Dalit community and are from poor background. Moreover, we cannot expect the children who are studying in IIIrd standard and IVth standard to immediately approach the police about the coercion or threat meted out to them by the accused and Mrs.Indhragandhi, Special Public Prosecutor. Another important factor in the instant case is that the Special Public Prosecutor has allegedly coerced the victim children to turn hostile to the prosecution. Therefore they did not have any option but to turn hostile to the prosecution. Hence the decision in Rajaram Prasad Yadav (cited supra), would not apply to the facts of the present case. However in the said decision, it has been held thus, "17. ........while dealing with an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, we feel the following principles will have to be borne in mind by the Courts: a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case? b) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated. c) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person. d) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case. e) The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice. f) The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. g) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. h) The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision. i) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered. j) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safe guard, while exercising the discretion. The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. k) The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The Court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results. l) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party. m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party. n) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right." Therefore, even as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav (cited supra), Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked in order to determine the truth and to render a just decision. 10. Similarly the decision in the State represented by, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai City-IV, Alandur, Chennai-16 vs. Thiru.N.Seenivasagan in Crl.OP.Nos.7694 and 7816 of 2019, it has been held that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the Court in order to meet the ends of justice. 11. 10. Similarly the decision in the State represented by, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai City-IV, Alandur, Chennai-16 vs. Thiru.N.Seenivasagan in Crl.OP.Nos.7694 and 7816 of 2019, it has been held that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the Court in order to meet the ends of justice. 11. In the decision in Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh and another vs. State of Gujarat and others (cited supra) it has been held thus, "35........If a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a mute spectator and a mere recording machine. He should become a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community he serves. Courts administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that has occurred in relation to proceedings, even if a fair trial is still possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair name and standing of the judges as impartial and independent adjudicators. 36........ 37......... 38........A criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the case and its purpose is to arrive at a judgment on an issue as to a fact or relevant facts which may lead to the discovery of the fact issue and obtain proof of such facts at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by their pleadings; the controlling question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the object is to meet out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent, and punish the guilty." 12. Since the object is to meet out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent, and punish the guilty." 12. In the decision in S.R.Sinha vs. Mrinal Sengupta and others (cited supra), relied on by Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), it has been clearly held that there is no bar against the examination of a witness even at a stage subsequent to the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in exercise of power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that what is important is that if the interests of justice so demands, a witness can be re-called for arriving at a just decision. 13. In the decision in Kathiresan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District (cited supra), Justice S.Nagamuthu, as he then was, has held thus. "27. It is well known that sexual abuse can cause intense feelings of embarrassment, fear and humiliation. The victim of sexual abuse is terrified that she will not be believed and ashamed that she does not know how to stop the abuse. The victim often feels trapped between wanting the abuse to stop and being terrified of other people learning what has been done to her. That fear can keep her silent while the abuse is going on, and for years after it has come to an end. It is important to remember that child victims often feel very confused about the abuse while it is ongoing. Out of such fear and confusion, the poor victim may continue to have a relationship with her abuser. The victim who suffers from trauma on account of sexual assault would react in different ways. Some victim may maintain contact with their abusers because they may still feel affection for them even though they hate the abuse. It is also possible for some victims to maintain contact with an attempt to regain control over their assault. Some others may maintain contact in an attempt to regain a feeling of normalcy. Due to the said confusion state , during investigation, initially, a victim may say that nothing had happened to her. It is also possible for some victims to maintain contact with an attempt to regain control over their assault. Some others may maintain contact in an attempt to regain a feeling of normalcy. Due to the said confusion state , during investigation, initially, a victim may say that nothing had happened to her. It is also reported that in many cases the victim deny the occurrence and deny that she was abused. Such suppression of occurrence would continue even for months. This is mainly because of fear of the stigma associated with the abuse, embarrassment and retaliation." 14. In the decision in Rameshwar vs. the State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1952 SC 54 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "It is desirable that Judges and Magistrates should always record their opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth" 15. In the instant case, the demeanor of the witnesses, especially, the victim children have not been recorded by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai. The Court had merely asked few questions to the children as though it is an empty formality and the same would not satisfy the legal requirements. It is not that in every case, where the witnesses who deposed before the Court want to change their mind and are prepared to speak differently, that the Court concerned should repeatedly accede to such request by lending its assistance. However, the Court can consider the genuineness of the prayer in the context as to whether the party concerned had a fair opportunity to speak the truth. The Court can always exercise its powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and merely because, the accused is questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after conclusion of the prosecution witnesses, it need not feel that it is powerless to allow such an application, nor abdicate its duty to arrive at the truth and satisfy the ends of justice. If the Court feels that re-calling of the witnesses is essential to arrive at the just decision, it can always invoke the provisions of the Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the orders passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai is perfectly in order. 16. In the instant case, the accused is a Head Master, basically a teacher. 16. In the instant case, the accused is a Head Master, basically a teacher. Normally, a Head Master being in such an exalted position is not expected to behave unbecoming of his position because he is a guardian for the children studying in his school. A teacher is ranked next to the parents in our ancient scriptures. A revered guru stooping down to the level of not only allegedly exploiting the girl children studying in the school but also trying to cover up his misdeeds does not deserve any mercy. Mrs. Indhragandhi, the then Special Public Prosecutor, being a lady herself, allegedly took sides with the accused. Any number of legislations to curb the menace of child abuse can have no effect when the Special Public Prosecutor joins hands with the Perpetrator. The trauma of sexual abuse on a child is devastating. Even a terminally ill person is not so miserable as the children who are sexually abused. The mental stigma will never go away or fade. If a child misses her childhood happiness, how can we expect to transform herself to an achiever. It is like losing a battle even before it begins and it is a permanent block. The reason for the block being her own teacher is most unacceptable. 17. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, I hold that examination of all witnesses once again is absolutely necessary in order to meet the ends of justice and therefore, the orders passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai in Crl.MP.Nos.1934 of 2019 and 1935 of 2019 in SC.No.15 of 2015 are confirmed. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai is also directed to post the matter on day to day basis and dispose of the entire case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order / uploading of the order. 18. In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.