| |
CDJ 2026 Ch HC 141
|
| Court : High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Case No : CRMP No. 2104 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS |
| Parties : Vasudev Isda Versus The State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Balod (C.G.) |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 11-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 582 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 CGHC 35174,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 582 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023)
- Section 348 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(M), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 4 & Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)
2. Catch Words:
- re‑cross‑examination
- right of accused
- fair trial
- cross‑examination
- recall of witness
3. Summary:
The petitioner sought re‑cross‑examination of the prosecutrix under Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023 after the witness had already been examined and cross‑examined on 06‑01‑2026. The trial court rejected the application, finding no exceptional circumstance justifying a recall. The petitioner argued that denying re‑examination violated the accused’s right to a fair trial, while the State contended that recall is not a matter of right and cannot be used to fill evidential gaps. The High Court examined the record, noting the absence of any new fact or circumstance warranting a recall and emphasizing that the right to cross‑examination is subject to procedural limits. It held that the trial court’s discretion was exercised correctly and there was no perversity or jurisdictional error. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 582 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "the BNSS, 2023") assailing order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. (POCSO) Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 96/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Rupendra Kumar & others) by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023 for re-cross-examination of the prosecutrix, has been rejected.
2. The brief facts, as reflected from records, are that the petitioner is prosecuted under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(M), 3 (5) of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "the POCSO Act") in connection with Crime No. 146/2025 registered at Police Station- Dondilohara, District- Balod. After usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and during trial the prosecutrix was examined before the trial Court on 06.01.2026 and after examination of the prosecutrix, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023 before the trial Court for her re-cross- examination which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 08.07.2026, hence this petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court without considering the legal submission that the grant of opportunity is right of the accused and if no opportunity is granted to the accused to elicit the true fact of the case, it will be adversely affected the right of the accused, as such the re-cross-examination of the prosecutrix is very much required and would pray for allowing the petition.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prosecutrix has already been examined and cross-examined before the learned trial Court on 06.01.2026 and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance or any specific ground necessitating her re-cross-examination. She would further submit that the provision relating to re-cross-examination of a witness cannot be invoked as a matter of right and cannot be used to fill up the lacuna in the case of the accused, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court and would pray for dismissal of the present petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.
6. From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that the prosecutrix was examined before the trial Court on 06.01.2026 and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this Court as to what particular fact or circumstance has subsequently emerged which could not be brought on record during her examination or cross-examination and which makes her re-cross-examination essential for a just decision of the case. It is also well settled that the power of recall of a witness cannot be exercised merely because a party subsequently considers that some questions were not put to the witness or that certain aspects of the case could have been brought on record more effectively. The Court cannot permit the process of recall to become a means of filling up the lacuna in the evidence of a party.
7. The right of the accused to a fair trial is undoubtedly a valuable and fundamental right. At the same time, fair trial does not mean that the accused is entitled to unlimited opportunities to cross-examine or re- examine a prosecution witness. The right of cross-examination has to be exercised within the framework of the procedure prescribed by law and subject to the discretion of the Court to prevent abuse of the process of law. Considering these aspect of the matter, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
|
| |
