1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Revision No. 482 of 2021

Rupesh Kumar Sahu, Son of Dukalha Ram Sahu, aged about 23 years,

resident of Ward No.04, Ahiwara, Police Station Nandini Nagar, District Durg,

Chhattisgarh

---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station-

Ahiwara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

----Respondent.

For Applicant : Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

Order On Board

12.08.2021

(1)

Proceedings of the matter have been taken-up through Video Conferencing.

(2)

This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 4.3.2021

passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court, District Durg in

Case No. 148/2020, whereby an application filed by the applicant/accused under

Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth 'the Code') has

been dismissed by the trial Court.

(3)

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim/prosecutrix has been

examined in the trial. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that

applicant/accused has committed rape with her, but denied the said fact in her cross-

examination. Further on being asked by the Court below, she has stated that it is

true that rape committed with her, thereby, she has falsified her earlier statement

given in the cross-examination, but in further cross-examination, she has stated that

2

police told her that whenever she has been asked by the Court about the incident,

then she would say that wrong act has been committed with her. From the aforesaid

statement of victim/prosecutrix, it is not clear that whether rape was committed with

her or not, therefore, it is necessary to call the victim/prosecutrix for her re-

examination as the same is required for proper adjudication of the case.

(4)

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that applicant was afforded

full opportunity to cross examine the victim/prosecutrix, therefore, again the

applicant can not be permitted for further cross- examination of the victim/prosecutrix

just to fill-up the lacuna because all the questions sought to be put to

victim/prosecution in the event of her cross-examination have already been asked in

the cross-examination held earlier. He further submits that if victim/prosecutrix has

made contradictory statement, then the applicant may put his submission while

arguing the matter and also challenge the credibility of the witness, therefore, there

is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and as such, same deserves to be

upheld.

(5)

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

annexed with the case.

(6)

Only on the basis of the fact that victim/prosecutrix has given contradictory

statement before the court below in her court statement that as to whether rape has

been committed by the applicant with her or not, she cannot be recalled for her

further cross-examination because if a person makes a contradictory statement

about a fact as has been stated by learned counsel for the applicant about the

victim/prosecutrix in this case, then on taking his further statement/further cross-

examination about the same fact would go against his some earlier statement, as

such, fact will remain same / unchanged.

(7)

If victim/prosecutrix has made contradictory statement, then credentialty of

her statement can be questioned during the course of argument by the

applicant/accused, permitting further cross-examination is not a proper recourse.

(8)

In the instant case, since applicant has already been afforded full / sufficient

3

opportunity to cross-examine the victim/prosecutrix, therefore, the reason for which,

she has been requested to be recalled for further cross-examination is not just &

proper and learned trial Court has not committed any error in dismissin