[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bijaya Kumar Rana vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. ... on 13 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4861 of 2025
Bijaya Kumar Rana .... Petitioner
Mr. Hara Prasad Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Debraj Mohanty, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 13.01.2026
03.
1.
In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved by
the order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the learned
A.D.J.-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack
in Special G.R. No.45 of 2022, whereby his application
under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling P.Ws.6,
7 and 9 has been turned down.
2. The petitioner has placed on record the
statements of the aforementioned witnesses. It is seen
from the evidence that the defence has availed the
opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses at
length, still application has been moved to recall the
witnesses for further cross examination on the ground
that vital and important questions inadvertently left
out needs to be put to the said witnesses. His
application has been primarily rejected on two
grounds, i.e., earlier, the petitioner had moved similar
application for recalling the said witnesses, which was
withdrawn and the trial of the case is at the
concluding stage.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me
to the proposed questionnaires annexed to the petition
to demonstrate the relevancy of those questions to be
put to the witnesses to arrive at the just conclusion.
4. I have perused the proposed questionnaires and
found that certain questionnaires are relevant for the
just decision of the case. However, confronted with the
legal bar under Section 33 of the POCSO Act,
recalling of child witness repeatedly appears to be not
permissible in the facts of this case. I am not
impressed by the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to recall all the three
witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.6, 7 and 9.
Reading of the proposed questionnaires to be
put to the said witnesses also reveals that the
questions are repetitive and overlapping. Therefore,
recalling P.W.7 at this stage on the face of the bar
under Section 33 of the POCSO Act is not acceptable.
Rather, said questions could be put to P.W.6, the
father of the victim and P.W.9, the mother of the
victim.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and
another, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 203. He has relied
upon paragraph-13 of the said judgment which reads
thus:
"13. Though it is expected that the trial of a
sessions case should proceed with reasonable
expedition and pendency of such a matter for
about 8-9 years is not desirable but then, the
length/duration of a case cannot displace the
basic requirement of ensuring the just decision
after taking all the necessary and material
evidence on record. In other words, the age of a
case, by itself, cannot be decisive of the matter
when a prayer is made for examination of a
material witness."
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the
stage of the trial is immaterial while considering the
application under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. because
the idea of the trial is to reach at a just and fair
conclusion. Therefore, the recalling application
deserves merit.
6. Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner is adopting a dilatory tactic only to prolong
the trial.
7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and
circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to
partly allow the present petition, granting an
opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine P.Ws.6
and 9 on their recall.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
23.10.2025 passed by the learned A.D.J.-cum-Special
Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack in Special G.R.
No.45 of 2022 stands modified and the learned trial
Court is directed to afford a singular opportunity to
the petitioner for cross-examining P.Ws.6 and 9. The
trial Court shall examine the relevancy of the
questionnaires to be put to the said witnesses and
summon both the witnesses to be examined on a
particular day. No adjournment on any ground shall
be afforded either to the petitioner/ accused or to the
prosecution on the date of cross-examination of the
said witnesses to be fixed by the Court.
9. With the aforementioned observation, the CRLMC
is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Subhasis Judge
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:55:30
