Ram Janam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

Ram Janam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 12.11.2025 set aside subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable to P.W.-2; revisionist granted one opportunity to cross-examine P.W.2/Raj Narain on the very same day he appears, with no adjournment except on cost of not less than Rs. 5,000/- per day; copy of order to be sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Ballia, for compliance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court rightly rejected the revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C./Section 348 B.N.S.S. after closing his opportunity to cross-examine P.W.-2, and whether the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 should be set aside.

Court's answer

It is settled law that there should be a fair trial and no prejudice is caused to the accused.

Ratio / Principle

In the interest of justice, fair trial and proper adjudication, the opportunity of cross-examination of P.W.2/Raj Narain is to be provided to the revisionist/Ram Janam, and the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 is set aside at a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

Key takeaways

The revisionist is directed to cross-examine P.W.2 on the very same day he appears before the court for his evidence/cross-examination, and the cost of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid by the revisionist to P.W.-2 on the same day, prior to initiation of the cross-examination.ratio¶17
In case of any default, or if any adjournment is sought by the revisionist, it shall not be allowed except on a cost of not less than Rs. 5,000/- per day.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid, J.) against order dated 12.11.2025 of the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.8, Ballia, in Special Session Trial No. 888 of 2023 (State Vs. Suraj and others; Case Crime No. 82 of 2023, u/Ss. 363, 366-A, 376, 506 IPC and S. 3/4, 16/17 POCSO Act, P.S. Haldi, District Ballia), whereby the revisionist's application under S. 311 Cr.P.C./S. 348 B.N.S.S. was rejected after his cross-examination of P.W.-2 was closed in his counsel's absence on 15.10.2025. Held: in the interest of justice, fair trial and proper adjudication, one opportunity of cross-examination of P.W.2/Raj Narain is to be provided to the revisionist; impugned order set aside at a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, payable to the witness on the same day prior to cross-examination; cross-examination to be conducted on the very same day the witness appears; no adjournment or default to be tolerated except on cost of not less than Rs. 5,000/- per day. Revision disposed of; copy of order sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Ballia, for compliance. (Counsel had relied on Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State); 2013(4) SCC (Cri) 828.)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 932 of 2026

Ram Janam

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite P
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Digvijay Tiwari, Kishan Kumar : G.A.
Court No.- 87

.....Opposite Party(s)

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.8, Ballia in Special Session Trial No. 888 of 2023 (State Vs. Suraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 82 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4, 16/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station Haldi, District Ballia, whereby the learned Special Judge has erroneously rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C./Section 348 B.N.S.S. of the revisionist.

The sole submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the examinationin-chief of P.W.-2 was recorded. On 15.10.2025, the PW-2 Raj Narain was present in the court. On that date, the revisionist's counsel was not present before the trial court and as soon as the revisionist called his counsel, his opportunity of cross-examination was closed by the learned trial court. Thereafter, he filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 12.11.2025. The said application was rejected by the learned trial court on the same day, i.e. 12.11.2025.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State); 2013(4) SCC (Cri) 828 in support of his submission.

It is settled law that there should be a fair trial and no prejudice is caused to the accused.

In view of all the considerations, and in the interest of justice, fair trial, and proper adjudication of the case on merits, the opportunity of cross-examination of P.W.2/Raj Narain is to be provided to the revisionist/Ram Janam. The impugned order dated 12.11.2025 is set aside at a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The opportunity of cross-examination is hereby provided to the revisionist with P.W.2/Raj Narain.

CRLR No. 932 of 2026

2

The revisionist is hereby directed to cross-examine P.W.2 on the very same day when he appears before the court for his evidence/cross-examination. The cost of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid by the revisionist to the PW-2 on the same day, prior to initiation of the cross-examination.

In case of any default or if any adjournment is sought by the revisionist, the same shall not be allowed except on a cost of not less than Rs. 5,000/- per day.

With these observations, the present criminal revision is disposed of .

A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ballia, by e-mail for compliance forthwith.

February 9, 2026 sfa/

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad