Orissa High Court
) Pratap Kumar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 26 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3310 of 2025
1) Pratap Kumar Pradhan ..... Petitioners
2) Bishnu Kishore Pradhan Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sanjay Kumar
Pradhan
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA
CORAM:
THE HONB'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
26.09.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the application as well
as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
the Petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 08.05.2025 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kodala in Sessions Trial
No.32 of 2022.
4. The above noted Sessions Trial case was registered on the
basis of the F.I.R. dated 06.11.2019 lodged before the
Kabisuryanagar Police Station for alleged commission of offences
under Sections 498-A/302/304-B/201/34 of the I.P.C. read with
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended
that in course of trial, the Petitioners although had cross-examined
the prosecution witnesses No.1, 4 & 5, however, it is alleged that
they could not be properly cross-examined because of the acute eye
problem of the conducting counsel for the Petitioners. Accordingly,
an application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the
aforesaid prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination. In the
aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioners, referring to the
provisions contained in Section 311 of Cr.P.C., submitted that for a
just decision of the case, learned trial court is not devoid of the
power to permit further cross-examination of the witnesses by
recalling them. He further submitted that the ground taken by the
Petitioners is genuine ground as the conducting counsel was having
an acute eye problem and he was not assisted by his associate
lawyers. It was also contended that taking into consideration the
gravity and seriousness of the allegation and the magnitude of the
punishment that can be imposed on the Petitioners, in the event they
are convicted under the aforesaid sections, the learned trial court
should have allowed the application thereby permitting the
Petitioners to cross-examine in the above noted witnesses on recall.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioners assailed the
impugned order rejecting the prayer of the Petitioners for recall of
the said witnesses.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to
the prayer for recalling of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5. She also supported the
order rejecting the prayer for recall of the witnesses dated 08.05.2025
of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kodala passed in Sessions Trial
No.32 of 2022. Learned counsel for the State further contended that
by a reasoned order, the prayer of the Petitioners for recall of the
prosecution witnesses Nos.1, 4 and 5 has been rejected. It was also
alleged that the filing of the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
is a ploy on the part of the Petitioners cause delay in the trial. As
such, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the present
application is devoid of merit and the same is liable to the dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and on a careful examination of the background facts, further
on close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 08.05.2025, this Court
observes that the Petitioners, who are accused facing trial in a dowry
death case, have approached this Court for recall of P.Ws. 1, 4 & 5.
This Court, at the outset, is of the prima facie view that taking into
consideration the severity of the punishment that is likely to be
imposed, the application for recall of witnesses could have been
considered keeping in view the principle laid down under Section
311 of the Cr.P.C., i.e. if the re-examination on recall of the
witnesses is necessary for a just decision of the case, the learned trial
court should not hesitate to recall such witnesses and permit the
accused persons to cross-examine them. Such practice would be in
furtherance of the principle that the accused persons shall be
provided ample opportunity to defend their case before the final
judgment is delivered, especially considering the severity of the
punishment in the factual background of the present case. Moreover,
the trial court should also have considered the application on the
merits of the questionnaire filed.
8. On perusal of the order dated 08.05.2025, this Court observes
that P.W.1 was cross-examined on 02.02.2023 and P.Ws.4 and 5
were cross-examined on 08.05.2024. It further appears that after
examination of the 5 witnesses from the prosecution side, the trial
has not progressed further.
9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and keeping in
view the severity of the punishment, this Court is inclined to allow
the application only in respect of P.Ws.4 and 5 considering the fact
that they were cross-examined on 08.05.2024. So far as P.W.1 is
concerned, this Court is not inclined to permit recall because of the
time gap.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kodala in Sessions Trial No.32 of 2022 is
modified to the extent that learned trial court shall recall P.Ws.4 and
5 on a particular date on production of a copy of this order and the
Petitioners shall be permitted to cross-examine the said witnesses and
they shall be discharged on the very same day. However, the
aforesaid order shall be subject to the Petitioners depositing cost of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) to the Advocates' Welfare Fund of
the Local Bar Association.
11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC is
disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
