##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:14901 S PA O T U E R L ABH DsSP D21+ i 06 AO i a g 0 g 2: T t n 5 U 0 i e6 E t 3 e 5 R : a . d 0 L 0: l A 2 4 by B 8. y 0 H 1 AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 901 of 2026

1 - Sajit Tirkey @ Chhote S/o Kamleshwar Tirkey, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Bharatpur, Markat Para Police Station - Sitapur Distt

Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station - Sitapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order on Board

01/04/ 2026

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,

2023 against the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 141/2023, whereby the application under Section 311 of CrPC filed by the petitioner for re- examination of the victim and her father and mother has been

rejected.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a charge-sheet for the

offences punishable under Sections 376, 354, 509, and 376(2)(f) of IPC has been filed by the concerned police station against the petitioner, and the same is pending trial. In this case, the victim

2

(PW-2) was examined on 12.11.2024, and the father and mother of the victim were examined on 08.01.2025, before the trial Court, and the defence counsel was afforded sufficient opportunities to cross-examine them. The petitioner filed an application on 27.01.2026 under Section 311 of CrPC for re- cross-examination of the victim and her parents, which was

rejected by the trial Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the

earlier appointed counsel, Mr. R.K. Choudhary, did not adequately cross-examine the victim (PW-2) and her father (PW- 3) and mother (PW-4). Consequently, the petitioner decided to engage a new counsel Mr. Janmejay Pandey to represent him before the trial court. Upon reviewing the case records, the new counsel discovered that some important questions have remained to be cross-examined from the victim and her parents therefore, the application filed by the petitioner is genuine and the trial Court committed grave illegality in rejecting the application. Hence, the impugned order dated 04.02.2026 is liable to be quashed, and the trial Court may be directed to give

an opportunity for re-cross-examination of the said witnesses.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the contention of the

petitioner and submits that strong and valid reasons ought to have been assigned by the petitioner for recalling the witnesses and in absence thereof, the power under Section Section 311 CrPC (corresponding to 348 of BNSS) should not have been invoked to entertain the application, therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed the order rejecting the application u/s 311 of

3

CrPC, which needs no interference.

5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the documents annexed with the petition including the

order impugned.

6. Section 348 of BNSS, 2023 states as under :-

348. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or re-call and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or re-call and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be

essential to the just decision of the case.

7. In this context, the following opinion has been expressed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhab Chandra Pradhan & Ors. Vs. State of Odisha, passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.

10082/2024 in paragraph 9 of the order dated 05.08.2024:-

“9. From a perusal of the record of the case, it is abundantly clear that ample opportunities were given to the defence counsel to cross-exami