$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 03.04.2025 + CRL.M.C. 2248/2025 MR. VIDHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Sahrawat, Mr.

Deepanshu. Goswami and Mr.

Kirti Chauhan, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with SI Dinesh Kumar PS NIA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J (ORAL CRL.M.A. 10042/2025 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2248/2025 & CRL.M.A. 10041/2025

3. The petitioner, by way of this petition, has assailed the order dated 19.03.2025 [hereafter „impugned order’], passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), North, Rohini Court, Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟]vide which the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereafter „BNSS‟]/ Section 311 of the Code of Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 2248/2025 Page 1 of 10 Digitally Signed Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.PC‟] has been dismissed.

4. Issue notice. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, the learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 24.06.2023, the complainant „S‟ i.e. victim‟s mother had made a PCR vide DD No. 31A, which was received at Police Station Narela Industrial Area, Delhi. Thereafter, the statement of the victim „K‟ had been recorded by the police officials, in front of her mother „S‟ and a counsellor. The victim disclosed that she used to live with her mother, brother and her step-father, and her mother used to work as a cart picker and her father worked as a loader. She alleged that when her mother used to go out for work, her step-father used to touch her inappropriately, on her private parts, and this had happened on some occasions in last 1-2 months. He had also allegedly threatened her not to disclose this to her mother or else, he would kill her mother. The victim further stated that four days ago, the victim had disclosed these incidents to her mother, but she had not initially believed her, till she herself saw the accused committing such acts last night, after which the mother had called the police. On the basis of the above statement, the present FIR was registered for offence under Sections 323/354/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟]and Section 6/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter „POCSO Act‟].

6. During the course of investigation, the medical examination of the victim was conducted. On 17.08.2023, chargesheet was filed Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 2248/2025 Page 2 of 10 Digitally Signed against the accused i.e. petitioner herein. Thereafter, the statements of the victim „K‟ (PW-1) and her mother „S‟ (PW-2) were recorded before the learned Trial Court on 01.02.2024 and 10.05.2024, respectively.

7. Eventually, an application under Section 348 of BNSS/ Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner, seeking recall of PW-1 and PW-2 for their cross-examination. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order, after recording the following observations:

“...Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that sufficient opportunity has already been granted and availed by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused by cross- examining both the witnesses i.e. victim 'K' (PW- 1) and her mother Smt. 'S' (PW-2) at length and also keeping in view the fact that granting further opportunity to the accused to cross- examine these witnesses would cause unnecessary harassment to the witnesses, I am not inclined to grant further opportunity to cross-examine the victim and her mother. The application is accordingly dismissed and disposed of The matter is at the stage of recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Adjournment sought by Ld. Counsel for accused for recording the statement of accused under Sec