JUDGMENT ORAL

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - CRL.M.A. 2867/2020

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

CRL.M.A. 2953/2020

1. The present application has been filed under Section 391 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant seeking recall and cross- examination of PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW7.

2. The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that in trial, the aforesaid witnesses could not be effectively cross- examined resulting in serious prejudice to the appellant.

3. The prayer sought in the application is vehemently opposed by learned APP for the State.

4. I have heard the learned counsels as well as gone through the Trial Court Record.

5. In the present case, vide order dated 05.03.2015, the appellant was charged for the commission of offence under Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, for having inserted his finger in the vagina of the child victim, who was aged about 6 years at the relevant time. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To support its case, the prosecution cited a total of 13 witnesses, including the child victim 'M' (PW4), her younger brother 'R' (PW5), her