Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Neelam – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and Shri Mohd. Afzal, the learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicants challenging the order dated 16.10.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Sant Kabir Nagar in S.S.T. No. 0071 of 2018 ( State of U.P. vs. Neelam ), on an application preferred by the accused applicants under Section 348 of BNSS praying herein to recall the victim/PW-2/opposite party no.3 for further cross examination.
3. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that a first information report was lodged by the informant/opposite party no.2 on 21.12.2017 in respect of incident dated 15.12.20217, bearing Case crime no.1888 of 2017, under Section 363 , 366, 120B IPC and Section 7 /8 POCSO Act, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar. The Investigating Officer after due investigation submitted chargesheet in this case on 27.01.2018, under Section 363 , 366, 120B IPC and Section 16 /17 POCSO Act and once the statemen
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.
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 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 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 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....
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 rejection of a request to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC is valid when it is deemed an attempt to prolong proceedings without just cause, emphasizing the need for fair trial principles.
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
