Ranjit Kumar Mishra vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) .... ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2455 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ranjit Kumar Mishra vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) .... ... on 16 March, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                     CRLMC No. 782 of 2026
                      Ranjit Kumar Mishra         ....                Petitioner(s)
                                                           Mr. Manas Kumar Chand,
                                                                         Advocate
                                                -Versus-

                      State of Odisha (Vigilance)        ....             Opposite Party (s)
                                                                 Mrs. Sarita Moharana, ASC
                                   CORAM:
                                   DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                                             ORDER

16.03.2026 Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present petition assailing the legality

of the order dated 06.12.2025 passed in C.T. (Special) Case No. 44

of 2024 by the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-

Special Court, Jharsuguda under the POCSO Act, whereby the

petition filed under Section 348 of the B.N.S.S., seeking recall of

the victim (P.W.1) for limited re-cross-examination, was rejected.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of the information

lodged before the IIC, Jharsuguda P.S., a case was registered

under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m), 65(1) and 351(3)

Digitally Signed of the B.N.S., read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, vide

Location: OHC Date: 18-Mar-2026 17:07:40 Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 497 of 2024, corresponding to C.T.

(Special) Case No. 44 of 2024, now pending in the file of the

learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Court under the

POCSO Act, Jharsuguda.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the month of January,

2024, while all family members, including the informant, a minor

girl, were sleeping in the same house, the petitioner, who had

married the mother of the informant about five years prior,

allegedly gagged the mouth of the informant and committed rape

upon her. It is further alleged that the petitioner threatened her

not to disclose the incident to anyone, due to which she remained

silent. Thereafter, on several occasions, the petitioner alleged to

have repeatedly committed such acts.

6. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the month of May,

2024, when the informant was alone in the bedroom, the

petitioner again attempted to commit rape upon her. On this

occasion, the informant raised an alarm, whereupon her mother

rushed to the spot. Upon learning about the incident, the mother

questioned the petitioner, whereafter both the informant and her

mother were allegedly assaulted by him. It is further alleged that

as a consequence of the said acts, the informant became pregnant,

following which the F.I.R. was lodged.

7. During the course of investigation, the Petitioner was arrested

and forwarded to the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge-

cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Jharsuguda on

01.08.2024, whereafter, on submission of charge-sheet,

cognizance was taken and charges were framed. The victim was

summoned for examination and was examined and cross-

examined as P.W.1 on 03.03.2025.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. has been

lodged after six months from the date of the alleged rape, and no

explanation whatsoever has been provided for such delay.

Moreover, in the statements under Sections 161/164 of the

Cr.P.C., the victim disclosed that she was pregnant. However,

there is no further material regarding either childbirth or

termination of pregnancy before any health centre. There is also

no material whatsoever regarding the scribe of the F.I.R. or under

whose instruction the same was prepared. After examination of

P.W.1, the learned counsel for the Petitioner found that such

material facts were not brought on record due to oversight.

Accordingly, in order to bring those material facts into evidence

by cross-examining P.W.1, on 13.08.2025 a petition under Section

348 of the B.N.S.S. was filed to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination

solely on limited questions as per the questionnaire.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the petition

dated 13.08.2025 vide order dated 08.09.2025 in a mechanical

manner, which constrained the Petitioner to approach this Court

in Crl. Rev. No. 770 of 2025. This Court, vide order dated

30.10.2025, was pleased to dispose of the said revision granting

liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Trial Court with better

particulars. Accordingly, on 19.11.2025, another petition under

Section 348 of the B.N.S.S. was filed to recall P.W.1 for re-cross-

examination with better particulars justifying such recall.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the learned

Trial Court again, after hearing the parties, rejected the said

petition dated 19.11.2025 by order dated 06.12.2025 in a

mechanical manner, which constrained the Petitioner to approach

this Court.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial

Court has not taken into consideration the available materials on

record in its true legal perspective and has lost sight of the

admitted fact that P.W.1 was proposed to be recalled only for

limited questions as per the questionnaire, which are highly

essential for adjudication of the case. Thus, the impugned order

rejecting the petition to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination is not

sustainable in law and requires interference by this Court.

Location: OHC Date: 18-Mar-2026 17:07:40

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

learned Trial Court, though citing certain judgments and Section

33(5) of the POCSO Act, has failed to appreciate that the omission

on the part of the defence to put relevant questions to P.W.1

during cross-examination was neither deliberate nor intentional,

but due to inadvertent mistake. The petition was filed before the

cross-examination of prosecution witnesses was over, and not

after any belated period or to delay the proceedings. Being the

first such application, the learned Trial Court ought to have

allowed the same instead of rejecting it.

13. It is submitted that the questions intended to be put to P.W.1 are

clear, specific, and were not put during the earlier cross-

examination. All the questions are relevant and meet the

requirements of the prosecution allegations. Rejection of the

petition on the ground that the questions are irrelevant or

insulting in nature is grossly illegal and prejudicial to the

defence. Considering the seriousness of the charge and the

consequences of severe conviction, the accused is entitled to

proper and ample opportunity to defend. The petition for recall

of P.W.1 was filed for the first time and not repeatedly, and the

proposed questions have a direct bearing on the result of the trial.

Thus, the impugned rejection order deserves to be quashed.

14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petition filed

to recall P.W.1 is highly essential to prove the innocence of the

Petitioner. The proposed questions are relevant and, if allowed,

will have a serious impact on the trial and assist the learned

Court in deciding the case properly. The rejection of the petition

being mechanical, the Petitioner humbly prays that the

impugned order be set aside and the petition be allowed, thereby

enabling the Petitioner to put limited questions as mentioned in

the recall petition, failing which the Petitioner shall suffer

irreparable loss.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently

objects to the prayer of the Petitioner and submits that the

witness has already been examined and cross-examined by the

learned defence counsel. It is contended that the questions now

sought to be put have already been answered. It is further

submitted that the present petition has been filed only to linger

the proceedings. On the strength of such submissions, it is prayed

that the petition be rejected.

16. The learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Court, Jharsuguda,

after hearing both sides and perusing the case record, observed

that the victim had already been examined and cross-examined at

length and discharged on 03.03.2025. It was further noted that an

earlier application for recall had been rejected and, pursuant to

Location: OHC Date: 18-Mar-2026 17:07:40 liberty granted by this Court, the present application was filed.

Upon consideration of the questionnaire, the learned Court held

that most of the material questions had already been put during

cross-examination and that several of the proposed questions

were irrelevant, vague, or not essential for just decision of the

case. The learned Court also observed that permitting recall of

the witness would not be warranted in the facts of the case.

Accordingly, the petition was rejected as being devoid of merit.

17. At the outset, it is well settled that the power under Section 348 of

the B.N.S.S. is to be invoked with circumspection for advancing

the cause of justice and not to enable parties to cure defects at an

advanced stage of the trial.

18. It is equally well settled that in cases under the POCSO Act, a

prayer for recall of the victim must be considered with caution,

keeping in view the need for expeditious trial and to avoid

unnecessary harassment to the victim. In this regard, the

Supreme Court in Arjun Sonar v. State of Arunachal Pradesh1,

while rejecting a plea seeking recall of the victim for cross-

examination in a case under the POCSO Act, has observed as

follows:

"7. Courts must be vigilant not to allow procedural submissions to evolve into tactics for harassment. A

1 Signed 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2065.

Digitally Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK

Location: OHC Date: 18-Mar-2026 17:07:40 request to recall a child victim after conclusion of trial and concurrent findings of guilt, raises serious concern. In the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity in the appreciation of evidence, no case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India would be warranted.

8. Our judicial conscious also does not permit casual indulgence in a prayer for the appeal being entertained where the conviction has been rendered after full fledged trial, affirmed in appeal and the testimony of the victim is clear, cogent, and duly collaborated. This Court has repeatedly held that in serious offence under the POCSO Act, particularly those involving familial betrayal of trust, relief cannot be granted as a matter of routine when two courts have concurrently found guilt and the findings are not shown to be perverse interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is neither warranted nor justified.

9. The legal process cannot become a means to perpetuate injustice under the guise of a procedural lacunas. In matters involving sexual violence against children, the paramount consideration is not the convenience of the accused but the integrity of the victim's testimony, the finality of lawful findings, and the need to prevent secondary victimization. Once the trial has concluded and the testimony has been recorded, in accordance with law, any attempt to recall the victim for re-examination, must be treated with extreme caution. In the absence of compelling legal necessity, it cannot be allowed. Such attempts must be discouraged, wherever necessary it should be nipped at the bud especially when they threaten to re-traumatize the victim.

10. Courts have a duty to ensure that survivors of child

abuse are not re-traumatized by the very justice system

Location: OHC Date: 18-Mar-2026 17:07:40 they turn for protection. Allowing such technical plea being raised in cases of such gravity, especially when guilt has been established after full fledged trial and confirmed in appeal, risks undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. It sends the wrong message/signal that procedural tactics override substantive findings. That cannot be permitted."

19. Having regard to the aforesaid settled position of law, the Court

is required to balance the competing considerations in the facts of

the case.

20. However, upon consideration of the submissions and on perusal

of the record, it appears that the present petition seeks recall of

P.W.1 only for limited questions which, according to the

Petitioner, could not be put earlier. While such omission cannot

be lightly accepted, it is also to be seen whether the proposed

questions are necessary for a just adjudication of the case. It is not

in dispute that this is the first such application and that the trial is

still in progress.

21. In the facts of the present case, since the prayer is confined to

limited questions and the trial has not yet concluded, this Court

is of the considered view that a limited opportunity may be

granted, subject to strict safeguards.

22. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 is set aside.

The learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court under Signature Not POCSO Verified Act, Jharsuguda shall consider the petition to recall Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK

Location: OHC Date: 18-Mar-2026 17:07:40 P.W.1 for further cross examination taking into account the

relevancy and admissibility of such questions.

23. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

Gitanjali