Karnataka High Court
Santosh vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 15 January, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:212
CRL.P No. 201675 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201675 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SANTOSH S/O RAJU KAMBLE,
AGED: 23 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK,
R/O. NANDIKURALI VILLAGE,
TQ. RAYABAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJESH G. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY,
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI JEWARGI POLICE STATION, JEWARGI
THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585102.
2. Xxx
...REPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528
OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER ON I A FILED U/S 311 OF CR.P.C DATED
05/11/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-I (SPL POCSO) AT KALABURAGI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:212
CRL.P No. 201675 of 2024
SPL.C( POCSO). NO.52/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
I A FILED U/S 311 OF CR.P.C AND TO PASS ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY IN
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by
the accused challenging the order dated 05.11.2024
passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and
FTSC-I, Kalaburagi in Spl.C(POCSO). No.69/2023, wherein
the application filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall PW.1 (victim) was
rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:212
3. Petitioner herein is being tried for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) and 344 of IPC
and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') by the
Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I
(SPL POCSO), Kalaburagi in Spl.C(POCSO).No.52/2024
and during the course of trial, the victim has been
examined before the Trial Court as PW.1. The application
filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused under Section 311
of Cr.P.C dated 28.10.2024 to recall PW.1 was rejected by
the Trial Court vide impugned order and being aggrieved
by the same, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having
reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that
in the event the petitioner is not granted an opportunity to
further cross-examine the victim girl, his case is likely to
be prejudiced.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:212
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 has opposed the
petition and submits that victim girl has been extensively
cross-examined in the present case and only to prolong
the trial, the application has been filed.
6. The application filed under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioner was opposed by the
Special Public Prosecutor by filing objections. In the
application dated 28.10.2024 filed under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C, it is stated that the earlier learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused had not
properly cross-examined PW.1 and had not put the
material questions to the said witness and also had not
confronted the material contradictions and omissions to
the witness and therefore, he had prayed to recall the said
witness for the purpose of further cross-examination. The
said application was opposed by the Special Public
Prosecutor by filing objections stating that the victim was
extensively cross-examined and there is no necessity to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:212
further cross-examine her and in the event the victim is
recalled, there is likelihood of the petitioner tampering the
said witness.
7. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has
rejected the application having placed reliance on various
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has
observed that an attempt is made by the defence to fill-up
the lacuna by recalling PW.1, which is not permissible. The
deposition of PW.1, which is made available to this Court
along with the petition would also go to show that she was
extensively cross-examined on behalf of the defence and
she has completely supported the case of the prosecution.
Section 33 (5) of the POCSO Act, 2012 specifically
provides that the Special Court shall ensure that the child
is not repeatedly called before the Court to testify in the
Court and Section 35 of the POCSO Act provides for a
period within which the evidence of the child is required to
be recorded.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:212
8. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the Trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the
application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section
311 of Cr.P.C. I do not find any merit in this petition and
accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:PK
