Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Govind singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 30th November 2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Kullu (learned Trial Court) in a case titled State of HP versus Govind Singh vide which an application filed by the accused under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for recalling the victim for cross-examination was rejected. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 3(1) (xi) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) (SC/ST) Act. Learned Trial Court framed the charges, recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses and fixed the matter for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC when the accused filed an application for recalling the victim
An application to recall a witness for cross-examination is interlocutory and not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of CrPC; valid reasons must be provided for such requests.
An order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory and not subject to revision. Recalling a witness should be balanced with considerations of fairness, undue hardship to witnesses, and delay in the ....
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 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 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 right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to a fair trial, and courts must allow re-examination if essential for justice.
The duty of the court to examine essential witnesses for the just decision of the case, as highlighted in Section 311 of Cr.P.C and Section 33(5) of POCSO Act.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to deny the recall of a child witness, emphasizing the need for effective prior cross-examination and adherence to statutory restrictions under the POCSO A....
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
