Sajit Tirkey @ Chhote vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1155 Chatt

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1155 Chatt
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2026

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Sajit Tirkey @ Chhote vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026

                                                        1




        Digitally
                                                                      2026:CGHC:14901
        signed by
        SOURABH



                                                                                        AFR
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL   Date:
        2026.04.01
        16:05:28
        +0530




                              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                            CRMP No. 901 of 2026

                     1 - Sajit Tirkey @ Chhote S/o Kamleshwar Tirkey, Aged About 21
                     Years, R/o Bharatpur, Markat Para Police Station - Sitapur Distt
                     Sarguja Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        ... Petitioner
                                                  versus
                     1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station - Sitapur,
                     District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.
                                                                     ... Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 01/04/2026

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,

2023 against the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ambikapur, District-Sarguja

(C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 141/2023, whereby the application

under Section 311 of CrPC filed by the petitioner for re-

examination of the victim and her father and mother has been

rejected.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a charge-sheet for the

offences punishable under Sections 376, 354, 509, and 376(2)(f)

of IPC has been filed by the concerned police station against the

petitioner, and the same is pending trial. In this case, the victim

(PW-2) was examined on 12.11.2024, and the father and mother

of the victim were examined on 08.01.2025, before the trial

Court, and the defence counsel was afforded sufficient

opportunities to cross-examine them. The petitioner filed an

application on 27.01.2026 under Section 311 of CrPC for re-

cross-examination of the victim and her parents, which was

rejected by the trial Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the

earlier appointed counsel, Mr. R.K. Choudhary, did not

adequately cross-examine the victim (PW-2) and her father (PW-

3) and mother (PW-4). Consequently, the petitioner decided to

engage a new counsel Mr. Janmejay Pandey to represent him

before the trial court. Upon reviewing the case records, the new

counsel discovered that some important questions have

remained to be cross-examined from the victim and her parents

therefore, the application filed by the petitioner is genuine and

the trial Court committed grave illegality in rejecting the

application. Hence, the impugned order dated 04.02.2026 is

liable to be quashed, and the trial Court may be directed to give

an opportunity for re-cross-examination of the said witnesses.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the contention of the

petitioner and submits that strong and valid reasons ought to

have been assigned by the petitioner for recalling the witnesses

and in absence thereof, the power under Section Section 311

CrPC (corresponding to 348 of BNSS) should not have been

invoked to entertain the application, therefore, the trial Court

has rightly passed the order rejecting the application u/s 311 of

CrPC, which needs no interference.

5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the documents annexed with the petition including the

order impugned.

6. Section 348 of BNSS, 2023 states as under :-

348. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or re-call and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or re-call and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

7. In this context, the following opinion has been expressed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhab Chandra Pradhan & Ors.

Vs. State of Odisha, passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.

10082/2024 in paragraph 9 of the order dated 05.08.2024:-

"9. From a perusal of the record of the case, it is abundantly clear that ample opportunities were given to the defence counsel to cross-examine the victim. When the victim has been examined and then cross-examined at length twice already, mechanically allowing an application for recall of the victim, especially in trial of offences under Section 376 would defeat the very purpose of the statute. Hence, we find no error or illegality in the impugned order of the High Court or the Order dt. 10.10.2023 of the Special Court."

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State (NCT of

Delhi) vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and Another, reported in (2016) 2

SCC 402 has held that it is not justified to repeatedly summon

the witness/victim merely on the basis of change of advocate or

alleged deficiency in cross-examination. Paragraph 15 of which

is as follows:-

"15. The above observations cannot be read as laying down any inflexible rule to routinely permit a recall on the ground that cross-examination was not proper for reasons attributable to a counsel. While advancement of justice remains the prime object of law, it cannot be understood that recall can be allowed for the asking or reasons related to mere convenience. It has normally to be presumed that the counsel conducting a case is competent particularly when a counsel is appointed by choice of a litigant. Taken to its logical end, the principle that a retrial must follow on every change of a counsel, can have serious consequences on conduct of trials and the criminal justice system. The witnesses cannot be expected to face the hardship of appearing in court repeatedly, particularly in sensitive cases such as the present one. It can result in undue hardship for the victims, especially so, of heinous crimes, if they are required to repeatedly appear in court to face cross-examination."

9. Looking to the material available on record and on perusal of

the impugned order, it is clear that the evidence of the Victim

(PW-2) was recorded on 12.11.2024, and the evidence of her

father and mother was recorded on 08.01.2025. The defence

was given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine these

witnesses, and they were discharged from evidence only after

being cross-examined at length. Thus, it is clear that after

giving sufficient opportunity for cross-examination to the

defence counsel. The trial Court considered the fact that the

opportunity for cross-examination again at this stage is not

justified and rejected the application.

10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme