Crl.P.No.705/2023 is filed by the petitioner/accused

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order of

dismissal of the application dated 06.01.2023, under Section

311 of Cr.P.C. and Crl.P.No.692/2023 filed by the same

accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the order

passed by the Special Court by rejecting the application under

Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

2.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.

3.

The petitioner was charge sheeted for the offence

punishable under Sections 450, 354, 305 of IPC and Section 8

of POCSO Act and he was facing the trial. The prosecution said

to be examined 11 witnesses. The petitioner filed an

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for recalling P.Ws.1 to 5

for the purpose of further cross-examination as they are the

family members and eyewitnesses to the incident and also

contended that the earlier counsel was not properly cross-

examined those witnesses except denial of the evidence. If the

petitioner is not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, his

- 4 -

case would be prejudiced and he would be put to hardship and

loss. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application under

Section 311 of Cr.P.C., before the Special Court, which came to

be dismissed. Hence, the petitioner before this Court.

4.

The case of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.692/2023 is

that during the evidence of the prosecution case, the petitioner

counsel filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., for

summoning the Station House Diary (SHD) from the police

station which came to be rejected on the ground as per Section

172 (3) of Cr.P.C., the diary maintained by the Investigating

Officer cannot be given in evidence. Therefore, application

came to be rejected which is under challenge before this Court.

5.

The

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

has

contended that previously FIR was registered against the

petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376 as well

as Section 302 of IPC and after receipt of the medical

examination report, the Investigating Officer recorded further

statement of the witnesses and they changed the version of the

prosecution stating that the accused said to be abetted the

deceased for commission of suicide and therefore charge sheet

- 5 -

came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 305

of IPC. Since, the deceased is the minor below the age of 16

years and therefore, the petitioner is required to verify the

Station House Diary, whether the FIR was filed as on

03.08.2021 narrating all the information and till the filing of the

charge sheet on 04.10.2021, the Station House Diary is

necessary for cross-examination of Investigating Officer.

Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

6.

Whereas, the learned High Court Government

Pleader seriously objected the petition and contended that the

petitioner has already cross-examined PWs.1 to 5 and there is

no necessary for recalling those witnesses and the Station

House Diary is not required to cross-examine P.W.1 -

Investigating Officer, since the learned counsel for the accused

has already cross-examined P.W.1 at lengthily. Therefore,

Station House Diary is not necessary for adjudication of the

matter and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7.

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for

the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.

Perused the records.

- 6 -

8.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is an

accused before the Trial Court. The FIR said to be filed against

him for the offence punishable under Section 376 as well as

302 of IPC. Subsequently, during the investigation the

Investigating

Officer

said

to

be

received

the

medical

examination report of the deceased, where there is no sexual

assault on the deceased. Therefore, the police dropped the

offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Since the

accused said to be outraged the modesty of the deceased, the

offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC