IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14264 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

MUNEGOWDA S/O OBAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A BIDALURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-562 110.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKSHITH R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, STATE BY VISHWANATHPURA PS, REP. BY SPP, Digitally HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, signed by LAKSHMI T BANGALROE-560 001.

Location: …RESPONDENT High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-III, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU DATED 25.10.2024 IN SPL. C. NO. 871/2022.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent/State.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, rejecting his application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall P.Ws.1, 2, and 3, for the purpose of further cross-examination.

3. Petitioner is the sole accused facing trial before the Special Court in Spcl.C.No.871/2022. As could be seen from the impugned order, P.W.11, victim girl is a minor aged about 11 years old. She was examined-in-chief on 09.06.2023. The defence cross examined her on the same day, as well as on 22.06.2023. Thereafter, the cross examination was concluded and no further chief was conducted by the prosecution.

4. Similarly P.W.2 was examined on 22.06.2023 by the prosecution and she was cross examined on 09.08.2023. P.W.3 was examined in chief on 09.08.2023. Since on the same day, the defence took time for cross-examination, on imposing a cost of Rs.250, he was permitted to cross-examine on 19.08.2023, on which day the said witness was also cross-

examined.

5. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application filed under Section 348 of BNSS (311 of Cr.P.C.) has observed that under Section 33 (2) of POCSO Act, whenever the victim is less than 16 years, the court is expected to follow the procedure under Section 33(2)of the POCSO Act and it is not only the duty of the court to create a child-friendly atmosphere, by allowing a family member or guardian, a friend or relative, to be present in the court, but the prosecutor and the counsel for accused have to communicate the questions to be put to the child to the Special Court, which shall in turn put those questions to the child. It is observed that the victim was partially cross examined on 09.06.2023 and she was further cross examined on 22.06.2023.

6. Similarly, learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration that P.W.2 and P.W.3 were fully cross examined. Even this court finds that P.W.1 to P.W.3 were extensively cross examined by the defence. As rightly observed by the trial Court, victim who is a minor aged about 11 years cannot be called again and again to the court for the purpose of cross examination, when it is clear from the material on the record that she has been cross examined by the defence.

7. In the application, the defence had sought to summon P.W.6 to P.W.8 as well, for cross-examination. In so far as the said witnesses are concerned, the trial Court taking into consideration that they were not cross examined, permitted the defence to cross examine them and to that extent allowed the application.

It is submitted that, now the case is posted for arguments. This Court finds no good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed Sd/-

(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

JUDGE AKV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31