Uttarakhand High Court
7 July vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6231
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 324 of 2024
17 July, 2025
Naved --Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the
revisionist.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand/respondent.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant criminal revision, the
revisionist has put to challenge the impugned
judgment and order dated 23.09.2022 passed in
Special Sessions Trial No.146 of 2022 State Vs. Naved,
pending in the Court of learned FTC/ Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offence punishable
under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) IPC and under Section
5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence
(POCSO) Act, 2012, whereby, the application filed by
the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits
that the previous counsel for the revisionist could not
appear before the learned Trial Court due to some
personal reason, therefore, the cross-examination of
PW-1 and PW-2 was not held. Then, the another
counsel for revisionist filed an application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C dated 22.08.2022 seeking
permission to cross-examine the PW-1 and PW-2,
before the learned FTC/Additional Sessions
1
2025:UHC:6231
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar. The cross-examination of PW-1
and PW-2 are relevant and germane for proper
adjudication of the case, but learned Trial Court did
not consider this aspect of the matter and rejected the
application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. vide its
order dated 23.09.2022 stating that the intention of the
revisionist was to harass the victim by calling her again
and again before the Court, which is not acceptable
under provisions of POCSO Act and the witnesses were
deliberately not cross-examined.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist further
submits that the learned Court below without
considering the facts and in a routine manner rejected
the application of the revisionist filed under Section
311 of Cr.P.C. By rejecting the application of the
revisionist, the learned Trial Court had erred in law,
the opportunity had been closed which amounts to
gross miscarriage of justice to the revisionist. He also
submits that there is no material evidence to connect
the revisionist with the alleged crime.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submitted
that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the
revisionist, as even after getting multiple opportunities,
learned counsel for the revisionist had failed to cross-
examine PW-1 and PW-2.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist made an
innocuous prayer that the ends of justice would be
met, if one last opportunity is given to cross-examine
the witnesses-PW-1 and PW-2.
2
2025:UHC:6231
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the impugned judgment and order dated
23.09.2022. From perusal of the judgment and order
dated 23.09.2022 impugned, the reasons have been
cited by the learned Trial Court for rejecting the
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. that the victim-
PW-1 under the POCSO Act cannot be called again and
again before the learned trial Court, as PW-1 (victim)
and PW-2 (complainant, mother of the victim) were
present on 04.07.2022 and 25.07.2022, but, on the
said dates, intentionally they have not been cross-
examined. This reasoning, at the first blush, appears
sound and convincing, but, if this Court look at the
right of both the victim as well as the revisionist-
accused vis-a-vis., the right to get a fair trial, weighs
much in favour of the revisionist-accused, who himself
is a juvenile (child in-conflict with law) as reflected from
the impugned order. If the revisionist is not provided
opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 (victim) and PW-2
(complainant, mother of the victim) the trial cannot be
said to be a fair trial and would become a farce trial.
Moreover, these witnesses could not have been
examined for to the reason that counsel of the
revisionist did not turn up and later on, the
subsequent counsel for revisionist had moved an
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Thus, this Court
is not in agreement with the reasoning given by the
learned Trial Court and is of the opinion that the
judgment and order impugned deserves inference by
this Court.
3
2025:UHC:6231
7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is
allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated
23.09.2022 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.146 of
2022 State Vs. Naved, pending in the Court of learned
Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, is accordingly set aside. The application
48kha filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the
interest of justice, the revisionist shall get an
opportunity to cross-examine the PW-1 (victim) and
PW-2 (complainant), to get a fair chance of defending
him. Learned Trial Court shall fix a date after
summoning PW-1 and PW-2 on that date, the
revisionist shall be given an opportunity to cross-
examine PW-1 (victim) and PW-2 (complainant).
8. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of
this order to the learned Trial Court to proceed with the
case forthwith.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
17.07.2025
PN
PREETI
Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe3
8331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81F
AE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959A
C, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.07.19 11:07:37 +05’30’
4
[ad_1]
Source link