2026:CGHC:4283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 259 of 2026 Shahil @ Ashu Sahu S/o Nanuk Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No.

18, Shikshak Colony, Tilda-Nevra, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tilda-

Nevra, District Raipur (C.G.)

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

For Petitioner : Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

23/01/2026

1. The present is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned order dated 17.11.2025, passed by learned Fourth Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No. 121 of 2024, whereby VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN an application filed by the petitioner under section 311 of CRPC has

VED PRAKASH

DEWANGAN

Date: 2026.01.28

been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case as emerges from the averments of the petition are that, the petitioner is an accused in the Special Criminal Case No. 121 of 2024 for the offence under sections 366, 376 and 376(3) of the IPC and sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’). The charge sheet was filed on 07.08.2024 and he was facing trial of the aforesaid offence. During the trial, the petitioner/accused made an application under section 311 of CRPC/348 of BNSS, 2023 for recalling of 03 prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4) for their recross- examination on the ground that these witnesses have not properly cross-examined by his earlier counsel. The said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court on 17.11.2025, which is under challenge in the present petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, section 311 of CRPC empowers the court to recall the witnesses at any stage for their further cross-examination for just decision of the case. Depriving the accused by not providing him sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses would hamper his defence, which would not be the object of fair trial. She would also submit that, by the mistake of the counsel, the accused cannot be punished. The witnesses are sought to be recalled for proper cross-examination and it is not to fill-up the lacuna and in the interest of justice and fair trial. The learned trial Court has erroneously considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has dismissed the application, which is liable to be set aside and the learned trial Court may be directed to recall the witnesses (PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4) for their recross-

examination.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that, the petitioner has not produced sufficient document in the present petition to demonstrate that there is requirement of recross-examination of the witnesses. He would also submit that except the order sheets of the learned trial Court, no other document has been filed by the petitioner. The victim has been examined on 08.11.2024 as PW-1 and her parents have been examined on 08.05.2025 as PW-3 and PW-4 and after a long time, the application under section 311 of CRPC was filed on 14.11.2025, which appears to be for filling-up the lacuna. The learned trial Court has rightly considered the entire aspects of the case and has rejected the application, which does not suffer from any illegality and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.

6. In the present petition, except the order sheets of the trial Court, no other document has been filed by the petitioner to demonstrate that what was the cross-examination by the witnesses on earlier occasion, what is the application made by the petitioner/accused and what are the questions lef