Dismissed

Dharam Singh Paikra Alias Gulu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Mar 2022CRMP/385/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in a criminal appeal where the petitioner, accused in a POCSO case, challenged the dismissal of his application to recall the child victim to question her age. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding no valid reason existed and recalling the child would cause embarrassment.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissing the application to recall the victim under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Dharam Singh Paikra Alias Gulu Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

CRMP No. 385 of 2022

¶3

Dharam Singh Paikra alias Golu S/o Ram Singh Paikra, Aged About 21 Years R/o - Village Amaru Sarkari Para, P.S. Pendra District - Gourella Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pendra District - Gourella Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) ----Respondent

¶6

For petitioner – Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate. For State- Shri Ayaj Naved, G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order

07/03/2022

Heard.

Instant petition is filed against the order dated 24/11/2021 wherein an application filed by the petitioner to recall the witness under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that inadvertently no question was put with respect to the age of the victim, as such the petitioner may be given an opportunity to call the witness to re-examine and put question about the age.

¶13

Learned State counsel opposes the argument and submits that every time on some pretext or the other the application of like nature specially in the POCSO case cannot be allowed.

¶14

Perusal of the application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. it is stated that while mother of the victim and victim was examined, no specific question with respect to the age of the victim was asked, therefore the victim and her mother be recalled. The trial court rejected the application and recorded that the counsel who was representing the accused was present on the date when the cross-examination was made on 24/08/2021 and detail cross-examination has been made. Perusal of the statement of the mother (PW-1), victim (PW-2) and her father (PW-3)

¶15

shows that while were examined, cross-examined and suggestions were made specific date of birth have been stated by the victim and crossexamination with respect to the age of the other children the mother of the victim was asked, therefore only without any sufficient reason by cryptic application re-examination is sought for. No extraordinary circumstances have been pointed out. On the contrary, it shows that the question with respect to the age was asked. If the petitioner want to demolish the age of the prosecutrix, then other evidence can be adduced during the defence witness. At this stage, taking into the nature of the cross-examination, no strong and valid reason has come to fore. Specially taking into the case that it is under the POCSO, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner, otherwise it would lead to embarrassment of the victim and she has to come to court time and again at the behest of the accused who is subject of trial.

¶16

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/-

¶17

(Goutam Bhaduri)

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

gouri

Dharam Singh Paikra Alias Gulu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Singh Paikra Alias Gulu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Abha Sahu Vs Rameshwar Prasad Sahu

Ramendra Repati Bala Vs Pankaj

Ramendra Repti Bala Vs Pankaj Haldar

Vinod Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kaushlesh Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suryakant Singh Parihar and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh