JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J (ORAL)

CRL.M.A. 23680/2025 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.REV.P. 312/2025

3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking setting aside of the order dated 01.07.2025 [hereafter ‘impugned order’], passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC, POCSO, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi [hereafter ‘learned ASJ’] in Sessions Case No. 4488/2024, arising out of FIR bearing no. 1190/2024, registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(F)/64(2)(M)/65(1) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 6 of POCSO

Act, 2012 – vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 348 of BNSS, 2023 for recalling PW-10 Dr. Ankita Khandelwal and PW-12 IO/WSI Pinki for cross-examination was dismissed.

4. Issue notice. The learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that that learned ASJ has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner without appreciating that further cross-examination of PW-10 and PW-12 is necessary for reaching just decision of the case. It is also stated that the application filed by the petitioner was not vague or cryptic and there were discrepancies in the testimony of PW-10 and PW-12 which require clarification to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is also stated that it is wrongly held that the witnesses have been cross-examined at length ignoring that the right of recalling witnesses is not limited by prior cross-examination but is intended to serve the ends of justice. It is also stated that the application was not filed to fill in the lacuna in defence of the revisionist.

6. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, argues that the present case was registered under Sections 64(2)(F)/64(2)(M)/65(1) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act. The allegations in this case were that the victim who was less than 13 years of age was repeatedly sexually assaulted by the accused due to which the victim child had conceived. The witnesses that the petitioner herein seeks to recall for cross-examination are PW-10 who is the doctor concerned

of Deen Dayal Upadhayay Hospital. The record reveals that PW-10 has only conducted the medical termination of pregnancy of the victim ‘S’ who was about 13 years of age, had sealed the samples of the fetus and had handed over them to the IO. The witness has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and the specific question has been asked that the sample was collected in a mechanical manner. PW-12 is the IO of the case who has been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused and a perusal of her testimony reveals that specific questions had been asked in the cross-examination to assail her testimony.

7. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and has perused the record.

8. The operative portions of order dated 01.07.2025 are set out below:

“5. A perusal of the file shows that the above said witnesses were cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel, who has filed the present application. As rightly submitted by the learned Prosecutor, a witness cannot be recalled again and again just to fill in the lacuna. Further, the application is vague and cryptic. The defence has not even mentioned in the application as to what material questions are to be put which allegedly could not be asked.

6. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the application and the same is accordingly dismissed...”

9. In the present petition, as well as in the application filed before the learned Trial Court, the revisionist has merely stated that certain clarification is required, for which cross-examination of the witnesses is sought. However, neither in the petition filed before this Court,

nor during the course of arguments, nor even in the application filed before the learned Trial Court, has the learned