Back
S. RACHAIAH
Qasim @ Mohammed Qasim – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S Rachaiah, J. - The petitioner prays to quash the order dated 09.12.2022 passed in SPL.C.C.No.1/2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II (POCSO) D.K., Mangaluru.
2. The trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, the petitioner herein sought to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination. The trial Court, while rejecting the order observed the following:
"Here in the case, admittedly the previous counsel on record for the first accused has cross-examined the victim girl at length that too in the month of August, 2022. The learned counsel has not specified the area in respect of which the intending questions are left out and to be cross-examined the witness. But he has assigned the blind and vague reason stating that some questions are left left. This cannot be a strong and valid reason to exercise the powers and recall the victim girl for further cross-examination as rightly contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Under the circumstances, the very application does not bear any merits rather it is intended to subject the victim girl for embarrassment by way of unnecessary cros
The power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. should be invoked to meet the ends of justice, and changing counsel can be a relevant factor in recalling witnesses.
The court affirmed that recall of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must serve a valid purpose and the previous opportunities for cross-examination were adequate, aligning with the protective manda....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 311 of Cr.P.C and the dilution of rigor under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act once the victim crosses the age of 18....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strong and valid reasons to recall witnesses, the protection of child victims from repeated testimony, and the discretion of the court....
An application to recall a witness for cross-examination is interlocutory and not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of CrPC; valid reasons must be provided for such requests.
The court emphasized the possibility of recalling a child witness for cross-examination under the POCSO Act in appropriate cases, despite the restriction under Section 33(5), based on valid reasons a....
The court upheld the trial court's decision to deny the recall of a child witness, emphasizing the need for effective prior cross-examination and adherence to statutory restrictions under the POCSO A....
Fair trial is a fundamental right which is guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India – Delay should be curtailed but that does not mean Court should allow cross-examination without giving ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
