[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Aman Ramteke vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 April, 2026
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2026.04.10
17:03:45
+0530
1
2026:CGHC:16667
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 865 of 2026
1 - Aman Ramteke S/o Jyoti Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Amapara Tahsil And District- Balod C.G.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Balod District- Balod C.G.
... Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
10/04/2026
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 against the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District-Balod (C.G.)
in Sessions Case No. 49/2024, whereby the application under
Section 348 of BNSS filed by the petitioner for re-examination of
prosecution witness Ashutosh Kaushik has been rejected.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a charge-sheet for the
offences punishable under Sections 109, 3(5), 103 of BNS has
been filed by the concerned police station against the petitioner,
and the same is pending trial. In this case, the prosecution
witness namely Ashutosh Kaushik (PW-5) was examined on
05.07.2025, before the trial Court, and the defence counsel was
afforded sufficient opportunities to cross-examine him. The
petitioner filed an application under Section 348 of BNS for re-
cross-examination of the prosecution witness namely Ashutosh
Kaushik (PW-5), which was rejected by the trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of
prosecution witness Ashutosh Kaushik has been recorded
before the trial Court, but his cross-examination on various
aspects of the case remains to be done, which is necessary for
the just decision of the case. He further submits that the
injured person himself was carrying a knife and also had a knife
on the date of incident, regarding which his cross-examination
could not be conducted, 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 22.12.2025 is liable to be quashed, and the trial Court
may be directed to give an opportunity for re-cross-examination
of the said prosecution witness.
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 348 of
BNSS, 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. 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."
8. Looking to the material available on record and on perusal of
the impugned order, it is clear that the Ashutosh Kaushik (PW-
5) has been cited as a seizure witness and Since the
petitioner/defence was given a reasonable opportunity to cross-
examine him, and he was 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.
9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the subject matter and also considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, and the material available on record,
I do not see any illegality or perversity in the order impugned to
interfere with the order.
10. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion
stage itself. Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Sourabh P.
