Kshirasindhu Tandi Vs State of Odisha

2 . In filing this CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.12.2025 passed in S.C. Case No.33/2017 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Titilagarh in rejecting the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.2/victim for her further cross-examination.

¶17

3 . Heard Mr. Seth, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Pradhan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior StenographerReason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACKDate: 22-Jan-2026 18:19:16

¶20

4 . Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, the victim in this case, was examined before the learned trial Court on 24.06.2019. During her cross-examination, the learned counsel, who previously represented the Petitioner before the Court below inadvertently failed to put certain material questions to the witness. In view of this,

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

learned counsel has filed a petition dated 22.12.2025 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., seeking recall of P.W.2/victim for her crossexamination, in order to putforth specific questions. The questions sought in the 311 Cr.P.C. petition to be put are as follows:

¶23

“i. How long time, the victim (you) was unconscious?

¶24

ii. What did the distance between the place of occurrence and the place to which the accused took you (her)?

¶25

iii. When you (victim) wake up first time?

¶26

iv. When you (victim) breastfeed your (her) child?”

¶27

5 . Upon hearing learned counsel for both parties and on a bare perusal of the case record, it appears that the learned trial Court declined the request made by the Petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on the ground of belated stage and the likelihood of delaying the trial process. The trial has substantially progressed and during the course of trial, some of the charge sheeted witnesses have already been examined. However, the Petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of I.P.C., and the victim, in her evidence, has fully supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the application for recall of P.W.2/victim under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which was filed more than four years after the examination of P.W.2/victim, cannot be said to have been wrongly rejected.

¶28

6 . In view of the above, the impugned order dated 23.12.2025, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh, does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

to entertain the prayer made in this CRLMC and the same stands dismissed.

¶31