Allowed

Rohit Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Apr 2022CRR/406/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision, directing trial court to afford accused an opportunity to cross-examine victim prosecutrix and her mother despite initial denial. Cost of Rs. 5,000 to LSB required. Case involves charges under IPC 363, 376 and POCSO.

What did the court decide?

Directed summons service to victim and mother for accused to cross-examine; required cost payment of Rs. 5000.

Rohit Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 406 of 2022

¶3

Rohit Singh Thakur S/o Lt. Virendra Singh (Wrongly Recorded as Virendra Singh In Order Sheet) Aged About 21 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar, Behind Mishra School, P.S. Civil Line, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶4

---- Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. -Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Respondent

¶8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Adv. For respondent/State : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Govt. Adv. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice NK Chandravanshi

¶9

Order on Board

¶10

19-4-2022

¶11

Heard on admission.

¶12

The revision is admitted for hearing.

¶13

With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶14

This criminal revision is preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14-3-2022 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, 1st FTC, Special Court (POCSO Act), Bilaspur in Special Sessions Case No. 14/2022, whereby the application filed by the applicant-accused to postpone the crossexamination of victim-prosecutrix and her mother has been dismissed, and after their examination by the prosecution, applicant's right of cross-examining them has been closed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that earlier the applicant-accused was represented by some other counsel who refused to represent him, hence, on 14-3-2022 when witnesses i.e. the victim- prosecutrix and her mother appeared before the Court to record their statements, the applicant engaged Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, Adv. who sought time to

¶16

¶17

cross-examine aforesaid witnesses on the ground that he has been engaged on the same day and he was not having any file, or document in respect of the case. But, after examination of both the witnesses by the prosecution, his opportunity to crossexamine them has been closed. He would further submit that without providing opportunity for cross-examination of the witnesses, no fruitful justice could be done. Hence, the applicant may be provided opportunity for cross-examination of the victimprosecutrix and her mother.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that in any case, if prayer of the applicant is accepted, then heavy cost may be imposed on him.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the file. 8. A perusal of the impugned order would show that earlier the applicant was represented by some other counsel, who is said to have refused to represent the applicant on 14-3-2022, when the victim- prosecutrix and mother appeared for examination, hence he engaged another counsel namely Shri Soumitra Kesharwani. The impugned order would also show that he showed his inability to cross-examine the witnesses on the ground that he was engaged on the day itself, he did not have any file or document, therefore, cross-examination of the witnesses may be postponed. The trial Court, considering the necessity of examination of victim- prosecutrix under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (for short, 'the POCSO Act') and various directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court, did not allow the application for postponing the cross-examination of witnesses, and dismissed the same, and after examination of aforesaid witnesses, closed the opportunity of cross-examining them.

¶20

¶21

It is trite law that principles of natural justice must be followed before taking any action against the person concerned. It is true that learned trial Court offered file of the court for perusal of the counsel, it is also true that the witnesses were present in the Court till 5.30, and only thereafter the right of the accused to cross-examine the prosecutrix and her mother was closed. But, it may be noted that the case has been registered against the applicant for offence under Section 363, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and therefore, the prosecutrix and her mother are the main witnesses in the case against the applicant-accused. If the accused is not allowed to cross-examine them, the case would almost certainly end in conviction on the basis of their unchallenged testimony, which may lead to gross failure of justice. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, it is necessary to allow the applicantaccused at least one opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix and her mother to secure the ends of justice, but subject to some cost.

¶22

In the aforesaid circumstances, the trial Court is directed to summon the victim/prosecutrix and her mother for their crossexamination by counsel for the applicant. This order shall be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Bilaspur and receipt to this effect be filed before the trial Court.

¶23

The Criminal Revision is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶24

Sd/(NK Chandravanshi) JUDGE

¶25

Pathak/-

Rohit Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Singh Thakur 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

A (Juvenile) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Latashri Sahu Vs Bijju Sahu

Akash Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

' N ' Juvenile Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dayaram Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh