ORDER

1. The applicant has preferred this revision under section 397 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 31.3.2023 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Susner, District Agar Malwa (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.12/2022, whereby an application preferred under section 311 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant / accused for re cross-examination of the prosecution witness (PW-1) has been dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present revision are that on 10.8.2022 prosecutrix along with her father Shankarlal and her aunt (Bua) launched an FIR at Police Station Nalkheda, Agar Malwa by stating that her date of birth is 4.7.2005. The father of the prosecutrix and wife of the applicant/accused namely Vishnu Bai have Rakhi relations for last ten years. Vishnu Bai and her husband / present applicant often used to visited the house of the prosecutrix and they used to talk on mobile phone. On 8.8.2022 at about 4:00 PM while the prosecutrix was going towards the market, near Veterinary Hospital she met the applicant / accused, where applicant with a wrong intention caught hold her left hand and started harassing her. Upon this, the prosecutrix started screaming for help, then the accused left her hand and allegedly threatened her by saying that if she would disclose the incident to anyone, he will kill her. Accordingly, offence has been registered.

3. After filing of the charge sheet, charges were framed by the trial Court and applicant was put to trial. Prosecution has examined some witnesses and case is fixed for examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after examination of prosecutrix (PW-1), the applicant has filed an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for summoning the prosecutrix (PW-1) for further effective cross-examination, because at the earlier occasion junior advocate could not done effective cross-examination of the prosecutrix and statement of prosecutrix under section 161 of Cr.P.C. could not be exhibited. At the later stage, after examination of some other witnesses, some new facts came to the knowledge of the applicant, therefore, re-cross-examination of the prosecutrix is required for just and proper for adjudication of the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the order of the trial Court is contrary to law and facts available on record. As per the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of V. N. Patil v. K. Niranjan Kumar reported in (2021) 3 SCC 661, re-cross-examination of the witness is essential for just disposal of the case, if there is a mistake in bringing valuable evidence on record and there is ambiguity in the statement of the witness, who has already been examined, which could have material impact on the final outcome of the case. During the cross-examination of the prosecutrix before the trial Court, her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. has not been marked as a defence exhibit. Hence, further crossexamination on the above points is essential for defence of the accused.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer by submitting that the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and no interference is warranted.

7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the documents filed by the parties.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon judgment delivered by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Md. Abdul Matlib v. State Of Assam, (1990) 2 Gau LR (NOC 23) 22 decided on 21 November, 1989, in paragraph No.13 has held as under :--

“13. On careful consideration of the submission, I think the provisions of section 293 are not controlled or regulated by the provisions under section 294 of the Code. It may be noted that section 293 was section 510 in the old Code of 1898 and section 294 has been inserted in the new Code which came into force on 1-1-74. The provision of section 293 o