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 protection from re-traumatization per Section 33 POCSO over routine defence pleas.

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. The Original Complainant and the Investigating Officer are personally present in Court.

2. The Petitioner, by the present petition has challenged the Order dated 17^th December 2025 (the Impugned Order) passed by the President, Children’s Court for the State of Goa (the Learned Judge), in Special Case No. 36/2023. The Learned Judge, by the Impugned Order, dismissed the Petitioner’s Application (the said Application) under Section 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code) to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination.

3. The Petitioner is undergoing trial before the Learned Judge for the offences under Section 354, 376 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 8(ii) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 and Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He is presently lodged in judicial custody. The Victim is now 13 years old, who is the younger daughter of the Petitioner. The allegations against the Petitioner are that the Petitioner, from 2018 till December 2019, had forcible sexual intercourse with the 12-year-old minor and has committed rape on her on several occasions. The complaint dated 12th April 2023 and the Victim’s statement dated 13th April 2023 also state that there is another offence registered in the State of Karnataka against the Petitioner of rape and kidnapping.

4. The witnesses proposed to be recalled, as per the said Application, are PW1 (the Victim’s mother), PW2 (the Victim), and PW3 (the Victim’s sister). PW1 was cross-examined on 14^th March 2024, 29th May 2024 and on 07th October 2024, PW2 on 18^th November 2024 and PW3 on 11^th December 2024. Thus, the cross-examination of PW1, PW2 and PW3 was concluded on 11^th December 2024. Thereafter, the cross-examination of PW4 and PW5 was concluded on 21st March 2025 and 28th April 2025, respectively. Further, the matter is now kept for the evidence of the Investigating Officer on 31st March 2026.

5. The sole ground in the said Application is that the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the Petitioner by the earlier Advocate of the PW1, PW2 and PW3 is in a highly perfunctory and casual manner. Though the Learned Advocate was instructed about the material facts, the relevant and material questions were not asked to confront the witnesses. It is further submitted that the cross-examination conducted by the earlier Advocate of the Petitioner merely consisted of bald suggestions without confronting the witness with material contradictions, omissions, or relevant facts necessary for an effective defence, etc.

5.1 Mr. Sardessai, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the Impugned Order has caused irreparable prejudice to the Petitioner and thus has resulted in a complete m