Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SAVITRI RATHO
Bhaskar Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's right to further cross-examination (Para 8) |
| 3. opposition's rationale against cross-examination (Para 9) |
| 4. legal provisions on witness recall and their application (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. conclusion on recall application with conditions (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Savitri Ratho, J.
This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the learned ADJ -cum- Special Judge under POCSO Act, Nayagarh in T.R. Case No. 170 of 2022 arising out of Chandapur P.S. Case No. 111 of 2021 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the P.W.1 the victim- informant (herein after referred to as “the victim” ) for cross examination.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2. The petitioner is facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363 /366/376 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(w)(i)/3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (POA) Act and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. Chandpur P.S. Case No. 111 of 2021 was registered on.07.08.2021 on the basis of the detailed written report of the victim.
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 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 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....
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 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 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 emphasized that recalling witnesses requires strong justification and cannot be used to delay trials or harass victims, aligning with established principles of fair trial under the law.
Judicial discretion in recalling witnesses under Section 311 of the CrPC must prioritize justice and protect victims, ensuring such requests are substantiated by compelling reasons.
Recall of witnesses – It is mandatory for a Court to recall witness for further cross-examination if his evidence appears to be essential for just decision of case.
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.
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
