Back
JYOTI SINGH
Miss A Through Guardian – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing an order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, East District, Karkardooma Courts, whereby the Court has allowed the application of the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. recalling the Petitioner (PW-2) for cross-examination in case titled `State v. Harpal Singh', SC No.2152/2019 arising out of FIR No.157/2019 dated 27.04.2019 under Sections 376/354/506/509 IPC registered at PS: Pandav Nagar.
2. Pursuant to the production warrant issued by this Court, the accused/Respondent No.2 has been produced in custody.
3. Factual score to the extent necessary is that pursuant to a complaint lodged by the Petitioner and her younger sister, the present FIR was registered. As per the averments in the petition, charges were framed against the accused on 19.09.2019 and thereafter PW-1 and PW-2 were summoned for prosecution evidence on 19.12.2019. On the said date, PW-1 and PW-2 were present in Court, however, examination-in-chief of only PW-1 could be concluded and the matter was adjourned to 06.02.2020 for her cross examination and for examination-in-chief
The main legal point established is the importance of balancing the rights of the accused and the prosecutrix under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act in ensuring a fair trial.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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....
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.
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
