Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT S.JAMSANDEKAR
Madhu Naik – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa – Respondent
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 17th 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
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.
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....
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
