In a significant procedural challenge raising questions about fair trial rights in sensitive POCSO prosecutions, the Calcutta High Court has stepped in to examine whether an accused can be denied an effective defence merely due to lapses by earlier legal counsel, scrutinising a trial court’s refusal to allow re-cross-examination of key prosecution witnesses in a sexual offence case from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The controversy began when an accused, facing charges under the POCSO Act, IPC, and the IT Act, approached the High Court against a Special Judge’s order refusing to recall seven prosecution witnesses for re-cross-examination. The defence argued that the case had already seen twists and turns, after an earlier conviction was set aside on appeal, the trial court was directed to re-examine the accused under Section 313 CrPC and deliver a fresh judgment.
Following this, the accused, now represented by a new advocate, sought re-cross-examination, claiming that the earlier cross-examination of crucial witnesses was poorly conducted. The State opposed the plea, warning that the law does not permit the defence to “fill lacunae” and alleging that the move was a delay tactic in a case where the accused was already on bail.
While acknowledging the settled principle that vulnerable witnesses in POCSO cases should not be repeatedly summoned, the Court made it clear that this safeguard cannot eclipse the accused’s right to a meaningful defence. After examining the trial record, the Court found substance in the grievance, observing that the earlier cross examination appeared “deficient” and “casual.”
In a pointed remark, the Court noted that allowing such “cryptic cross-examination” to stand could seriously prejudice the accused and that “the laches on the part of the concerned advocate of the accused may ultimately cost the accused heavily.”
Holding that the request was not a mere dilatory tactic but “absolutely essential” for a fair defence, the Court set aside the trial court’s order and directed that the prosecution witnesses be re-cross-examined strictly on the limited points flagged by the defence.
Consequently, the revision petition was allowed.
Case Title: Shri Krishna Mohan Das Vs. The State
Case No.: CRR/62/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Krishna Mohan Das,
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Adv. Vinita Devi, Adv. Sumit Kumar Karmakar,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
