Tamil Nadu Advocate General Vijay Narayan told Madras High Court on Wednesday that the State government is working on measures to fast-track prosecution in cases involving crimes against women and children. [XXX Vs Director General of Police].

The Advocate General informed the Court that the State was taking crimes against women and children “very seriously” and giving the issue top priority. He sought time to place a detailed response before the Court on the measures proposed by the government.

A Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan recorded the State’s assurance that proper infrastructure would be put in place so that prosecutions in such cases can be fast-tracked and accused persons can be expeditiously brought to book.

The submission was made during the hearing of a petition filed by a sexual assault survivor seeking directions for speedy trial in rape and sexual offence cases across Tamil Nadu.

The petitioner highlighted that the accused in her case were police personnel and she sought immediate framing of charges in the case pending before the Mahila Court at Tiruvannamalai.

The petitioner also sought strict compliance with the mandatory two-month timeline under the proviso to Section 346(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which deals with completion of inquiry or trial in rape cases.

There should be day-to-day examination of witnesses without unnecessary adjournments in such cases, it was contended.

The State told the Court today that the is being given the highest priority.

He also indicated that steps were being considered to strengthen forensic labs and DNA testing facilities since delays in such processes often affect trials.

The Court also examined why the trial in the Tiruvannamalai case had not progressed.

It was informed that the discharge petition filed by the first accused had already been dismissed. A revision petition against that dismissal was pending, but there was no stay from any higher court.

“Pendency of a mere revision petition need not stall the conduct of the trial,” the Court said in its order.

The Court also noted that the second accused had filed a discharge petition before the trial court. It directed the trial court to dispose of that discharge application within seven days from the date of receipt of the High Court’s order.

If the discharge application is decided in favour of the prosecution, and if no interim order is obtained from a higher court within ten days thereafter, the trial must be concluded on or before July 31, the Court directed.

Further, the trial should to proceed on a day-to-day basis.

Public Prosecutor John Sathyan also appeared in the case.