Back
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Rakesh – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhii – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C') for quashing of order dated 23.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FSTC), POCSO, North-West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in Sessions Case 53715/2016 arising out of FIR bearing no. 669/2016, registered at Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (`POCSO Act').
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused had allegedly committed rape upon respondent no. 2/prosecutrix, following which, an FIR was registered on 20.10.2016. The examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the prosecutrix and of the complainant i.e. mother of the prosecutrix was concluded on 20.10.2018. Thereafter, on 30.08.2019, the doctor who had proved the contents of MLC was examined and discharged. The petitioner had moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking directions to re-call the prosecutrix and her mother on the ground that the cross-exam
The right to fair trial cannot mean unjustified repeated opportunities of cross-examination, and the case of the accused has to be meritorious for such relief to be granted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the sensitivity and caution required in exercising the discretion to re-summon a witness, especially in cases of sexual assault, balancing the vict....
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 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 victims of sexual assault should not undergo repeated cross-examination, emphasizing the need for fair trial rights while protecting vulnerable witnesses.
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 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 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....
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
