Partly allowed¶29

Bijaya Kumar Rana v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Jan 2026CRLMC/4861/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court; CRLMC No.4861 of 2025; Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra; order dated 13.01.2026; recall of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C.; bar under Section 33 POCSO Act on repeated recall of child witness; further cross-examination of P.Ws.6, 7 and 9; Special G.R. No.45 of 2022; A.D.J.-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack; Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 203; impugned order modified; singular opportunity; no adjournment; partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; singular opportunity granted to the petitioner to cross-examine P.Ws.6 and 9 on their recall; no adjournment on any ground to be afforded either to the petitioner/accused or to the prosecution on the date fixed for cross-examination. ¶29

Bijaya Kumar Rana Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling P.Ws.6, 7 and 9 for further cross-examination should be permitted despite the trial court's rejection. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

On perusal of the proposed questionnaires, certain of them were found relevant for the just decision of the case.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Confronted with the legal bar under Section 33 of the POCSO Act, recalling of the child witness repeatedly is not permissible in the facts of this case; recalling P.W.7 at this stage is not acceptable.

¶18

Key takeaways

The proposed questions being repetitive and overlapping, the relevant questions could be put to P.W.6, the father of the victim, and P.W.9, the mother of the victim, rather than recalling P.W.7.ratio¶18
The impugned order dated 23.10.2025 stands modified and the learned trial Court is directed to afford a singular opportunity to the petitioner for cross-examining P.Ws.6 and 9.ratio¶28
The trial Court shall examine the relevancy of the questionnaires to be put to the said witnesses and summon both the witnesses to be examined on a particular day.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLMC (Orissa HC, 13.01.2026, Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.) — Recall of witnesses, S.311 Cr.P.C. — Accused in POCSO trial (Special G.R. No.45 of 2022) sought recall of P.Ws.6, 7 and 9 for further cross-examination; A.D.J.-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack rejected the plea on 23.10.2025, noting an earlier withdrawn similar application and the concluding stage of trial — High Court found certain proposed questions relevant but observed the questions were repetitive and overlapping; held that, on the face of the bar under S.33 POCSO Act, repeated recall of the child witness is impermissible and recall of P.W.7 unacceptable, while the relevant questions could be put to P.W.6 (father of the victim) and P.W.9 (mother of the victim) — Impugned order modified; singular opportunity granted to cross-examine P.Ws.6 and 9 on recall, with directions to test relevancy of the questionnaires, summon both witnesses on a particular day, and allow no adjournment to either side — CRLMC partly allowed. Para 13 of Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 203, invoked by counsel for the proposition that the age of a case cannot displace a just decision, is reproduced in the judgment.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No.4861 of 2025

¶3

Bijaya Kumar Rana …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Hara Prasad Panda, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & another …. Opp. Parties

¶7

Mr. Debraj Mohanty, AGA

¶8

Order No.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA ORDER

¶10

13.01.2026

¶11

¶12

1. In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the learned A.D.J.-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack in Special G.R. No.45 of 2022, whereby his application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling P.Ws.6, 7 and 9 has been turned down.

¶13

2. The petitioner has placed on record the statements of the aforementioned witnesses. It is seen from the evidence that the defence has availed the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses at length, still application has been moved to recall the witnesses for further cross examination on the ground that vital and important questions inadvertently left out needs to be put to the said witnesses. His application has been primarily rejected on two

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

grounds, i.e., earlier, the petitioner had moved similar application for recalling the said witnesses, which was withdrawn and the trial of the case is at the concluding stage.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me to the proposed questionnaires annexed to the petition to demonstrate the relevancy of those questions to be put to the witnesses to arrive at the just conclusion.

¶17

4. I have perused the proposed questionnaires and found that certain questionnaires are relevant for the just decision of the case. However, confronted with the legal bar under Section 33 of the POCSO Act, recalling of child witness repeatedly appears to be not permissible in the facts of this case. I am not impressed by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to recall all the three witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.6, 7 and 9.

¶18

Reading of the proposed questionnaires to be put to the said witnesses also reveals that the questions are repetitive and overlapping. Therefore, recalling P.W.7 at this stage on the face of the bar under Section 33 of the POCSO Act is not acceptable. Rather, said questions could be put to P.W.6, the father of the victim and P.W.9, the mother of the victim.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and another , reported in (2019) 6 SCC 203 . He has relied upon paragraph-13 of the said judgment which reads thus:

¶22

“13. Though it is expected that the trial of a sessions case should proceed with reasonable expedition and pendency of such a matter for about 8-9 years is not desirable but then, the length/duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of ensuring the just decision after taking all the necessary and material evidence on record. In other words, the age of a case, by itself, cannot be decisive of the matter when a prayer is made for examination of a material witness.”

¶23

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the stage of the trial is immaterial while considering the application under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. because the idea of the trial is to reach at a just and fair conclusion. Therefore, the recalling application deserves merit.

¶24

6. Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is adopting a dilatory tactic only to prolong the trial.

¶25

7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

partly allow the present petition, granting an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine P.Ws.6 and 9 on their recall.

¶28

8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the learned A.D.J.-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack in Special G.R. No.45 of 2022 stands modified and the learned trial Court is directed to afford a singular opportunity to the petitioner for cross-examining P.Ws.6 and 9. The trial Court shall examine the relevancy of the questionnaires to be put to the said witnesses and summon both the witnesses to be examined on a particular day. No adjournment on any ground shall be afforded either to the petitioner/ accused or to the prosecution on the date of cross-examination of the said witnesses to be fixed by the Court.

¶29

9. With the aforementioned observation, the CRLMC is partly allowed.

¶30

Subhasis

¶31

Judge

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:55:30

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Bijaya Kumar Rana v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijaya Kumar Rana 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Maharana Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Barik @ Santosh Bariki Vs State of Odisha

Gourav Kumar Agrawal@Kallu Vs Anil Kumar Agrawal

Ranjit Vs State

Bhima Vs State

Kaushik Mandal Vs State of Odisha