[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Narayan Das @ Aryan Pant vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13905
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 421 of 2026
1 - Narayan Das @ Aryan Pant S/o Suresh Kumar Pant Aged
About 20 Years R/o Bakawand Awaspara Thana Bakawand,
Distt. Baster, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bakawand, Distt. Baster,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - XYZ (Complaint Details Is An Envelope)
... Respondents
For Applicant : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
24/03/2026
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 read
with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated
12.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO Act), Jagdalpur, District - Bastar
(C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 30/2024, whereby the
application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C./348 of BNSS filed
Digitally
by the applicant has been rejected.
signed by
HEERA HEERA
LAL SAHU
LAL Date:
SAHU 2026.03.24
17:29:12
+0530
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that charge sheet for the
offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act has been filed by the concerned
police station against the applicant and the same is
pending for its trial. In this case, on 18.10.2024, the victim
(PW-1) has been examined before the trial Court, and the
defence counsel has afforded sufficient opportunities to
cross-examine the victim. The applicant filed an application
on 07.02.2026 under Section 348 of BNSS for re-cross-
examination of the victim, which was rejected by the trial
Court. Hence the petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that
the victim (PW-1) was examined on 18.10.2024.
Subsequently, on 07.02.2026, an application under Section
348 of BNSS was filed seeking her re-examination, on the
ground that after the accused was released from jail, the
victim engaged in a chat with the applicant on Instagram
on 29.09.2025, wherein she admitted that she had lodged a
false report under pressure from her elder father and out of
greed for money; therefore, they wish to conduct a re-cross-
examination of the victim, 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 12.02.2026 is liable to be quashed,
and the trial Court may be directed to give an opportunity
for re-cross-examination of the victim (PW-1).
4. Learned State counsel submits that a perusal of the record
clearly shows that the victim (PW-1) has already been
examined, and the defence counsel has already afforded
sufficient opportunities to cross-examine the said witness.
The case is currently at the stage of defence witnesses, and
this application appears to be filed by the defence to
deliberately delay the trial; therefore, the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
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. Section 33(5) of The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 states as under:-
33. Procedure and powers of Special court.-
(5) The special Court shall ensure that the child is not
called repeatedly to testify in the Court.
8. 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
the POCSO Act 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."
9. 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."
10. Looking to the material available on record and on perusal
of the order impugned, it is clear that the evidence of the
Victim (PW-1) was recorded on 18.10.2024, and the defence
was given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the
said witness, and they were discharged from evidence only
after her cross-examination at length. In the application
filed under Section 348 of BNSS, the Instagram chat is
alleged to have taken place on 29.09.2025 and thereafter
the application itself was submitted approximately four and
a half months later, on 07.02.2026; moreover, the case is
currently at the final stage of the defence evidence. Thus, it
is clear that after giving sufficient opportunity for cross-
examination to the defence counsel. The trial Court
considered that the victim had been cross-examined in
detail by the defence; consequently, in the interest of
justice, it did not appear necessary to recall her for further
cross-examination to clarify subsequent circumstances and
rejected the application.
11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the subject matter and the provisions of
Section 33(5) of the Special Act 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.
12. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at
motion stage itself.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H.L. Sahu
