Back
W. DIENGDOH
Biresh Barman – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Matter taken up via hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Panthi, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court with this application, seeking to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, (POCSO), Shillong in Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 8/2014 whereby the court was pleased to recall the complainant for further examination and for which the examination-in-chief was recorded by the court.
3. Briefly stating the facts, Mr. Panthi, has submitted that pursuant to an FIR dated 29.03.2013, a case was registered as Rynjah P.S. Case No. 21(3)2013 u/s 9(n)/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. On investigation being completed and charge sheet filed, the matter proceeded for trial before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong. Thereafter, evidence was led by the prosecution and on conclusion of the same, the statement of the accused/petitioner was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C and the matter was posted for final argument on a number of dates. It may be mentioned that the complainant when she was initially summoned for recording of her evidence in court, had turned hostile and was accordingly, treated so by t
The court affirmed the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C to re-examine witnesses to ensure just decision-making, emphasizing the prohibition of arbitrary use of this power.
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.
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 power under Section 311, Cr.P.C. should be exercised with restraint and caution, especially at the final stage of the trial, and delay in filing the application may impact the court's decision.
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.
Merely on asking the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed as there has to be sufficient reasons behind it.
The court emphasized that the power to recall witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, ensuring it is essential for a just decision and not merely to fill gaps in evidence.
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 emphasized that the power to recall witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, ensuring it is essential for a just decision and not merely to fill gaps or delay proc....
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
