GAHC010158262024 2025:GAU-AS:17598

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.Pet./942/2024 AMIT KUMAR MAHASETH

S/O SRI SHIVAJI MAHASETH

R/O LACHIT NAGAR,

HOUSE NO. 4/3,

BYE LANE NO. 4, SOUTH SARANIA HILL

P.O. ULUBARI

P.S. PALTAN BAZAR,

DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SRI SHIVNATH SHAH

S/O LT. SUKHDEO SHAH

R/O TARUN NAGAR

BYE LANE NO. 8

GUWAHATI

P.S. BHANGAGARH DIST. KAMRUP (M)

ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. JYOTIRMOY ROY, MR. JAYANTA ROY,MR D DAS,MR. S

SARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

18.12.2025 Heard Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.

Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P. S.

Lahkar, the learned Addl. PP for the State of Assam.

2. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 when the matter was heard.

3. The instant application has been filed under Section 582 of BNSS, 2023 for setting aside of the impugned order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the learned Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Sessions Case No.209/2018, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) rejected the petition, vide No.3177 dated 01.11.2023, filed by the Petitioner for recall and re- examination of already cross-examined 3 (three) witnesses, namely, PW. 1, Sri Shivnath Shah (Father of the deceased), PW. 2, Smt. Asha Devi (Mother of the deceased) and PW. 3, Sri Ritesh Kumar (Brother of the deceased).

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati for recalling and re- examination of already cross-examined 3 (three) witnesses i.e. PW. 1, PW. 2 and PW. 3 for interest of justice. It was the contention of the Petitioner before the aforesaid learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati that due to some inadvertent mistakes of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner earlier, the cross- examination of the aforesaid 3 (three) PWs were not conducted in a proper manner and there remained many vital questions to be asked to the PWs in defence of his case. It was contended that the perusal of records revealed that there were no suggestions put on behalf of the Petitioner (accused) to the aforesaid 3 (three) witnesses. It was also contended that no contradictions were made that with statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with the depositions made by the 3 (three) witnesses before the learned Trial Court. It was contended that some vital questions very much essential to the just decision of the case were inadvertently not put to the aforesaid 3 (three) witnesses. Therefore, it was contended that since section 311 Cr.P.C. provides the power to any court at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Cr.P.C. to recall or re-examine any person already examined, in the instant case too, the aforesaid learned counsel should have recalled and re-examined the 3 (three) witnesses who were already examined and cross-examined before the learned Trial Court for ends of justice and for the learned TrialCourt to reach a just decision in the case.

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati failed to appreciate that the recalling of the aforesaid 3 (three) witnesses was crucial for addressing substantial questions that were left out during the cross examination of the aforesaid PWs.

6. The facts of the case involved in the instant case as narrated in the petition are summarized hereinbelow:-

(i)An FIR was lodged on 31.08.2013 alleging that his daughter Late Aarti Kumari Shah had escaped from school with a boy named Amit Kumar Mahaseth (Petitioner) and both got married on a later date as per their rituals and custom. Though, they stayed happily for some time but after some time of their marriage, the petitioner a