NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 565 of 2024  Shaheed @ Chisti Ansari S/o Riyajuddin Ansari Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Mahavirganj, Chowki- Vijaynagar, Police Station Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner Versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station-

Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent (Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

For Applicant : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

14/03/2024

1. By this petition under Section 482 read with Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (POCSO Act) Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, in Sessions Trial No. 77/2022, by which the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling one of the prosecution witnesses for re-

examination.

2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner is an accused against which Sessions Trial No. 77/2022 has been registered and is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (POCSO Act) Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj for the offence under Sections 376(2-DH), 509(KH), 313, 506 of the IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act.

3. This matter has been listed for orders on default as there the paragraph number is not mentioned in a sequence. The said default is a very minor default which could have been corrected in few minutes but the same has not been rectified and the matter is listed before the Court for orders on default.

4. The said default is over ruled and this Court proceeds to hear the matter on merits.

5. Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner had moved an application before the learned trial Court under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling one of the prosecution witnesses i.e. the Head Master of the school to ascertain the actual age of the victim. It is submitted by him that since the Dakhil Kharij register contains some overwriting in front of the name of the victim, the Head Master was required to be re-examined, however, the learned trial Court, without appreciating the fact that on the earlier occasion, no such question was asked to the said witness in the Court nor was he examined in detail, in the interest of justice, he should be examined again for which the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit the travelling expenses in respect of the said witness also. In support of his contentions, he relies on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Manish Sonkar v. State of Chhattisgarh {Cr.M.P. No. 74/2022 decided on 25.02.2022} wherein the learned Single Judge, relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court, was pleased to allow the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and allowed re-examination of the prosecutrix.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned counsel for the State/respondent submits that the attempt of the petitioner/accused in recalling the Head Master (PW-5) is nothing but an attempt to delay the conclusion of the trial. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected theapplication of the petitioner/accused. As such, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

8. From perusal of the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court for recalling the prosecution witness (PW-5) for re- examination, it appears that the only reason assigned is that the said witness could not be examined in detail and if the said witness is not examined again, it would cause grav