Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT S.JAMSANDEKAR
Madhu Naik – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of pocso rape trial and recall application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. prior cross-examination perfunctory; recall for effective defense. (Para 5) |
| 3. recall harasses child victim; violates pocso protective framework. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. wide judicial power under bnss 348 for just decisions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. recall not routine; no mere counsel change ground. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. pocso section 33 prevents repeated child testimony. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. stricter recall scrutiny in pocso ongoing trials. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. pocso victims constitute vulnerable witnesses. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. tangible grounds essential; balance fair trial interests. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. vague delayed application malafide; traumatizes vulnerable witnesses. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 11. petition dismissed; trial court order upheld. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
1. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and by consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties. The Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and Learned Counsel appearing for the Original Complainant and the Victim waive service
In child sexual offence trials, recall of witnesses under Section 348 BNSS rejected for vague claims of inadequate prior cross-examination, counsel change, and delay; prioritizes child victim's prote....
The court emphasized that recalling witnesses requires strong justification and cannot be used to delay trials or harass victims, aligning with established principles of fair trial under the law.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in permitting the recall of witnesses, particularly in cases involving child witnesses, and the importance of balancing....
The court held that the accused has a right to cross-examine the victim, but restrictions apply to protect minors, emphasizing the need for relevance and care in questioning under the provisions of S....
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 denial of an accused's right to cross-examine the victim in a POCSO case undermines the fairness of the trial, warranting remand for further examination.
The denial of cross-examination rights in a trial under the POCSO Act infringes on the accused's right to a fair trial, necessitating remand for proper procedural adherence.
The rejection of a request to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC is valid when it is deemed an attempt to prolong proceedings without just cause, emphasizing the need for fair trial principles.
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
