IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No.388 of 2025

Aakash Haldar ...Revisionist

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent

Presence

Mr. D. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the Revisionist.

Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned AGA, for the State of

Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the

order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the revisionist’s application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.W.-1 (child victim) for further cross-

examination has been rejected.

2. The State’s case originates from FIR No.39 of 2023 registered under Sections 376(3) and 506 IPC and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act regarding allegations of repeated sexual assault committed upon

a minor girl aged about fourteen years.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet No.107/2023 dated 29.03.2023 was submitted before the competent court. The record reflects that the victim was examined as P.W.-1 on 19.05.2023 and was also cross-examined by the defence. The learned trial court

was afforded to the defence to cross-examine the witness and that the examination was duly concluded.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. The submission advanced on behalf of the revisionist is that the earlier counsel could not put certain relevant and necessary questions, and therefore, in the interest of justice, the child victim ought to be recalled.

6. It is contended that unless the victim is subjected to further cross-examination, the defence would suffer prejudice.

7. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned order, submits that the victim has already been fully examined, and argues that the present application is nothing but a device to delay the trial and re-subject the victim to mental trauma.

8. At this juncture, the court observes that since the matter relates to sexual offence against a child wherein the witness in question is a child victim; who as per law and as per mandate of the Act (POCSO) is needed to be brought before the Court or to be in relation to the incident of which she already is a victim.

9. Learned trial court has clearly explained why the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected by not providing another chance to get such a child victim examined again who is a survivor of a sexual assault. The learned trial court has has explicitly been afforded to the defence for both chief-examination and cross-

examination.

10. This cannot be the only ground whereby the changing hands of an advocate can become a tool for re-examination of a witness that to a sexual assault survivor female child. The relevance as to the Coordinate Bench order has referred by learned counsel is not of relevance at this juncture. However, it is also evident that the present application is merely a tactic employed to seek an unwarranted recall.

11. It is the statutory mandate of the POCSO Act that the child is not required to appear repeatedly and is protected from secondary victimisation. Recalling a child victim without compelling justification would defeat the object of the Act, cause undue trauma to the survivor, and unnecessarily protract the proceedings. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the revisionist during the earlier cross-examination, nor has any material omission been identified that could not otherwise be argued at the stage of final hearing of the trial.

ORDER

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that the order passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or perversity.

Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed No order as to costs. Ashish Naithani, J.

10.11.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Dig:tca=2l0y s,5o.1ned8b7CAOR9UTI3SN+GFH'Ku2.54087ed9ba6c1f37d, postlC=UTARKHNDriumbC9E83714F5AB9, cn=RTISNGH