Siva Shankar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶15

By filing the present CRLMC application under section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023 the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in G.R.Case No.07 of 2019 corresponds to Golanthora P.S.Case No.63 of 2019 for alleged commission of offence punishable under sections 447, 448, 420, 386, 387, 294, 506, 354,120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(v)(x)(xi) and 3(2) of S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset

¶17

Page 1 of 4.

¶18

contended that vide impugned order dated 25.03.2025 at Annexure-4, learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur has rejected the Application of the Petitioner to recall P.W.1 namely Jasoda Dash for her further crossexamination. He further contended that the principal ground for rejection, as per the order dated 25.03.2025 is that the case is an old one and recall of any witness at this stage would cause delay in the trial. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the questions reflected in the questionnaire in the Petition at Annexure-3 are relevant questions and the same are required to be asked to P.W.1, otherwise the Petitioner will be highly prejudiced. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 25.03.2025 with a further direction to the trial court to give an opportunity to further cross-examine P.W.1.

¶19

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State objected to the prayer made by the Petitioner in the present CRLMC Application. He further contended that by virtue of the impugned order dated 25.03.2025, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur has rejected the application of the Petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C. by passing a reasoned order. He further contended that the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. at the instance of the Petitioner is to prolong the trial and the same is against the concept of giving fair justice to the affected person. Learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that the application filed by the Petitioner is not to be entertained and the present

¶20

Page 2 of 4.

¶21

CRLMC Application be dismissed at the threshold.

¶22

Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on careful examination of the background facts of the present case and further keeping in view the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered view that the Application under section 311 Cr.P.C. can be entertained at any stage of trial of posting. Moreover, it has been held by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court that delay is not a criteria only basing upon an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. can be rejected. While rejecting the Application under section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall any witness for cross-examination, learned trial court should be guided by the principle of relevance of such questions and by keeping in view the principle of fair trial. It is needless to mention here that a fair trial is to be governed under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 25.03.2025, although the trial court has dealt with the questions formulated and reflected in the questionnaire, however, relevancy of such questions have not been specifically dealt with. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the examination of prosecution witnesses are not yet over, no harm will be caused if the witnesses are allowed to be recalled for further examination in a time bound manner.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid analysis this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 25.03.2025 at Annexure-4. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, it is directed that the trial court shall do well to recall P.W.1 in a

¶24

Page 3 of 4.

¶25

single day for further cross-examination by the Petitioner. Such cross-examination shall be concluded in a single day and the prejudice caused to the victim will be compensated on payment of Rs.3000/- by the Petitioner to the P.W.1. Learned trial court shall ensure that on production of today’s order within a week, P.W.1 shall be recalled as expeditiously as possible and cross-examination shall be conducted in a single day by the Petitioner and thereafter the witness shall be discharged on the very same day.

¶26

With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶27

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶28

RKS

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Page 4 of 4.

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Aug-2025 16:15:21

Siva Shankar Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siva Shankar Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pitabash Danta Vs State of Odisha

Md. Safiq Khan Vs State of Odisha

Sasmita Nandi Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Darjee Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Krushna Chandra Choudhury@ Tukuna Vs State of Odisha