The court emphasized the importance of not harassing victims in sexual offence cases during re-examination, ensuring fair trial principles are maintained.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 60/2023 whereby, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 1973.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel engaged to defiend the charges was not engaged by the petitioner, but by his father. Even the counsel engaged has not cross-examined the victim, but his junior, who could not posed important questions relevant in the facts of the case to victim, about her age and relationship between petitioner and victim. Therefore, the petitioner has changed the counsel and have engaged another counsel through District Legal Services Authority. He also contended that as the specific question could not be put to the victim, application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was filed, however, the said application was erroneously rejected by the learned Trial Court. He submits that there are chances to settle the dispute between the parties and therefore also, re-examination of victim is necessary.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/State vehemently opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application with a well reasoned order. He also pointed out that from perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court, it is apparent that the questions for which, re-examination is sought has already been put to the victim during her cross-examination.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

5. Perusal of the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 would show that the grounds which is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been pleaded. However, the pleading is only that the specific question with regard to age and relationship has not been put on the victim. Copy of the deposition of the victim is placed on record as Annexure P/3. Perusal of the same would show that in Para 8 & 9, specific question has been posed on the victim with regard to her age and in para 11 to 14, questions regarding relationship between the victim and the petitioner has also been put upon her.

6. From the aforementioned facts of the case and perusal of the deposition of the victim, it is apparent that the victim has been posed multiple questions on both the grounds which is subject matter of application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.. It is well settled law that the victim in cases of sexual offences committed against her, is not to harass her by calling again and again for re-examination in the garb that some questions has not been put to her during her examination/cross-examination. The discretion as provided under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to Courts are to be exercised after taking into consideration facts and circumstances of each case.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328 has observed thus:

“10. The first part of this section which is permissive gives purely discretionary authority to the criminal court and enables it at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to act in one of the three ways, namely, (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part, which is mandatory, imposes an obligation on the court (i) to summon and examine or (ii) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.

11.