Back
VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA
Akshay Rana – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Udham Singh Nagar in Special S.T. No.163/2021, whereby the application moved by the revisionist under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
2. Heard on admission.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisional court has committed illegality in rejecting the application moved by the revisionist u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of the prosecutrix. He would submit that father of the prosecutrix was examined as PW2 and during his cross-examination this fact came forward that father of prosecutrix has not lodged any report in the matter nor the prosecutrix had told anything to him regarding the alleged incident and that he did not know as to what was written in the F.I.R. and the report was submitted in the police station by the villagers. He would further submit that recalling PW1 (prosecutrix) for cross-examination is essential for fair and just decision of the case as the father who is sole guardian of the victim is showing unawareness about the incident and that earlier counsel engaged by the rev
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 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....
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.
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....
A court may refuse to recall a witness for cross-examination if the application is made after significant delays, particularly under special legislation designed to protect vulnerable witnesses of ch....
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....
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
