Dismissed

Saddam Khan S/O Shri Hussain Khan B/C Muslim v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Sept 2019CRLMP/4406/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's miscellaneous petition seeking re-summoning of the prosecutrix. The Court held that the lesser charge of the prosecutrix was not cross-examined twice despite the petitioner's absence of counsel, and under the POCSO Act's provision prohibiting repeated child testimony, there was no justification for re-summoning.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous petition dismissed and stay application disposed against.

Saddam Khan S/O Shri Hussain Khan B/C Muslim… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4406/2019

¶3

Saddam Khan S/o Shri Hussain Khan B/c Muslim, R/o House No.G-900, JDA Colony, Paldi Meena, Agra Road, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Bhadu, P.P.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Order

¶11

05/09/2019

¶12

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition aggrieved by order dated 11.03.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Cases No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby, application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been party allowed and PW-3 Seema Sharma, mother of the victim has been re-summoned but prayer to re-summon the prosecutrix has been rejected.

¶13

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that crossexamination of witness was closed due to absence of counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner cannot be punished for lapses on part of his counsel.

¶14

I have considered the contentions and have perused the impugned order as well as order-sheet submitted with the petition.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMP-4406/2019]

¶17

It is apparent that prosecutrix was not cross-examined by the counsel and was re-summoned by the Court and on the next occasion also she was not cross-examined, hence the Court closed the cross-examination.

¶18

As per Sub-Section (5) of Section 33 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, the Special Court is required to ensure that the child is not called repeatedly to testify in the Court.

¶19

Absence of counsel is not just a ground for adjourning a case. More particularly, there is specific provision that the child is not called repeatedly to testify in the court and the child witness appeared twice but she was not cross-examined. There is no justification for re-summoning the child witness, the misc. petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Stay application stands disposed.

¶20

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶21

Simple Kumawat /57

Saddam Khan S/O Shri Hussain Khan B/C Muslim v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam Khan S/O Shri Hussain Khan B/C Muslim v. State of Rajasthan

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

Kamal Pathik and Ors. Vs State

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kedar Singh S/O Shri Jawan Singh B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramavatar@Banti S/O Mahaveer Prasad Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Yadav S/O Shri Prabhu Yadav B/C Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Patram S/O Gaurisahay B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan