JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner in this case is Jon Sing Engti Kathar and the respondents are the State of Assam and the victim ‘X’. The petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, (POCSO), Karbi Anglong in connection with POCSO Case No. 7 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 224/2021, arising out of Diphu P.S. Case No. 118 of 2021 registered u/s 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) read with Sections 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act for short).

3. It is submitted that an FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 2, Ishta Terangpi, Centre Administrator of Centre of Sakhi One Stop Centre, Karbi Anglong contending inter alia that a girl named ‘X’ (name withheld), aged 15 years was sexually assaulted and mentally tortured by Sri Jackson Kathar alias Jackson Kramsa (petitioner of this case). It is alleged that the mother of the victim ‘X’ sent her to the house of the accused Sri Jackson Kathar and she too has abetted the accused to commit the offence. The accused frequently committed sexual assault on the victim and impregnated her. When the victim was three months pregnant, the accused and the victim’s mother took her to a Pharmacy for abortion. On 1st May, 2021 the accused tried to take the victim back to his house but the victim fled and took shelter in her elder sister’s house. The victim informed the KNCA (Karbi Nimso Chingthan Arong) about her plight and implored for help. The President and Secretary of KNCA then apprised the informant about the incident. The informant is respondent No. 2 in this case. As soon as the FIR was registered, investigation commenced and finally charge-sheet was laid against the accused (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner). The victim’s mother was also arraigned as an accused and charge-sheet was laid against her. Trial commenced and evidence was recorded. It is submitted that the petitioner repeatedly prayed for bail but his prayer for bail was rejected and he is in custody since 04.05.2021.

4. It is averred that the medical report, the statement of the victim u/s 164 Cr.PC, and the seized article do not support the prosecution case. As the petitioner was in jail since 04.05.2021 he did not have the opportunity to appoint an Advocate of his choice to defend his case in a proper manner. Consequentially the victim who was examined as PW-1 was not properly cross-examined. The prosecution evidence has already been closed and the case is fixed for recording of statement of the petitioner u/s 313 Cr.PC. For a fair verdict, the petitioner filed an application u/s 311 Cr.PC to cross-examine the victim on certain vital points but the prayer of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 10.04.2023.

5. The learned Addl. P.P., on behalf of respondent No. 1 laid stress in his argument that at the fag-end of this case, the victim may not be re-examined again. On re-examination of the victim the defence may fill-up lacunae.

6. The order dated 10.09.2023, impugned by the petitioner reflects that all the cited witnesses including the victim have already been examined by the prosecution and they were duly cross-examined by the defence. After examination of all the prosecution witnesses, the prayer for re-cross-examination of the victim was made at the fag-end of the trial on 30.03.2023. The defence had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses and all the witnesses were cross-examined at length. It was held by the trial Court that there was no reasonable and satisfactory ground to allow the defence to re-cross-examine