Devnarayan Chandrakar vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 981 Chatt

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 981 Chatt
Judgement Date : 25 March, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Devnarayan Chandrakar vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026

                                                           1




                                                                         2026:CGHC:14189
          Digitally



                                                                                       NAFR
          signed by
          SOURABH
SOURABH   PATEL
PATEL     Date:
          2026.03.25
          18:12:14
          +0530




                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                               CRMP No. 858 of 2026

                       1 - Devnarayan Chandrakar S/o Shri Chhattar Singh Chandrakar,
                       Aged About 20 Years, R/o Pachpedi Near Chandrakar Bhawan, Police
                       Station Old Bhilai, Distt, Durg (C.G.).
                                                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                        versus


                       1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer,
                       Police Station- Old Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.).
                                                                               ... Respondent

For Petitioner : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 25/03/2026

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

2023 against the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned

District & Additional Sessions Judge, 04 th FTSC (POCSO), Durg

(C.G.) in Criminal Case SCC-POCSO/82/2025, whereby the

application under Section 348 of BNSS filed by the petitioner for

re-examination of the victim has been rejected.

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

punishable under Sections 65(1), 331(4), 351(2) of BNS, and

Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act has been filed by the

concerned police station against the petitioner and the same is

pending for its trial. In this case, on 03.01.2026, the victim (PW-

1) has been examined before the trial Court, and the defence

counsel has afforded sufficient opportunities to cross-examine

her. The petitioner filed an application on 20.02.2026 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 Petitioner submits that the

earlier appointed counsel, Mr. Sudhanshu Khare, did not

adequately cross-examine the victim (PW-1). Consequently, the

petitioner decided to engage a new counsel Mr. Ashok Sinha 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

(PW-1); 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

20.02.2026 is liable to be quashed, and the trial Court may be

directed to give an opportunity for re-cross-examination of the

said 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 348 of BNSS

(corresponding to Seciton 311 CRPC) should not have been

invoked to entertain the application, therefore, the trial Court

has rightly passed the order rejecting the application u/s 348

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. 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 03.01.2026 and the defence was given a

reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the said witness and

she was discharged from evidence only after her cross-

examination 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.

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)