The right to recall a victim for further cross-examination must be justified; repeated testimony of child witnesses is generally restricted by law.

ORDER

Dated : 22^nd January, 2026

The accused in S.C.704/2023 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Kottayam, filed this Crl.Revision Petition under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS challenging the order of the Special Court dismissing Crl.M.P.147/2025, filed by him under Section 348 of BNSS praying for recalling the victim/PW1 for further cross-examination.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in crime No.1175/2023 of Vaikom police station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 354A (1)(i), 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506(i) IPC and Section 4 r/w 3(a), 6 r/w 5(l), 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(l) of PoCSO Act and Section 3 (1)(e), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.

3. In the above case the evidence of both sides was already over and when the matter was posted for final arguments, the then counsel appearing for the petitioner died. After the new counsel was engaged by the petitioner, he moved the present application praying for recalling the victim seeking permission to cross-examine her further. As per the impugned order, the learned Special Judge held that the victim was cross-examined at length by the then counsel and in the light of clause (5) of Section 33 of PoCSO Act , the child witness cannot be called again and again to testify in the court and accordingly, the learned Special Judge dismissed the above application.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, some relevant questions were omitted to be asked by the then counsel and therefore further examination of the victim is necessary for the just decision in the case.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Revision Petition.

6. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following : Whether the prayer for recalling the victim is liable to be allowed ?

7. It appears that the victim/PW1 was examined before the Special Judge as early as on 13.7.2023. The printed deposition of the victim runs into 26 pages. The petitioner filed the application under Section 348 of BNSS on 21.6.2025 about two years after the examination of the victim. The only reason stated in the application is that the earlier counsel has omitted to ask some relevant questions. The details of the question allegedly omitted by the then counsel were not disclosed in the application filed under Section 438 as well as in this Revision Petition.

8. As held by the learned Special Judge, clause (5) of Section 33 of the PoCSO Act makes it clear that the Special Court shall ensure that the child witness is not called repeatedly to testify in the court. Since it is revealed that the victim/PW1 was extensively cross-examined at length by the then counsel, the present application filed about two years after the examination of the victim at the instance of the new counsel, that too without offering any valid grounds, is liable to be dismissed. Therefore I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge so as to call for any interference.

In the result, this Crl.Revision Petition is dismissed.