AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an application challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in POCSO Case No.
25/2017 thereby rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for deferment of cross-examination of some witnesses under Section 231(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that although the petitioners prayed for deferment of cross-examination of 7
witnesses including the two witnesses viz. CSW 1 and CSW 3, the prayer in respect of CSWs 7, 8, 13 and 14 were not allowed as they were not
related to the victim girl. The petitioner further contends that if the deferment of cross-examination is not allowed for all those witnesses who were the
purported eye witnesses to the incident, defence of the accused would get disclosed.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the dates for examination for witnesses have been fixed a number of times but the
defence kept on praying for adjournments on some pretext or the other. He contends that the mandate of Section 33 and 35 of the POCSO Act have
to be meticulously followed.
The learned advocate submits that the defence ought not to have refused to cross-examine of PWs 2 and 3, the two minor victim girls especially when
the other accused have already cross-examined them. The learned Sdvocate for the State submits in his usual fairness that a single opportunity may
be given to the present petitioners to cross-examination the victim girls PWs 2 and 3 in the interest of justice.
I have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioner and the State. I have also gone through the petition alongwith the copy of the
ordersheet. It appears that PWs 2 and 3 were examined in chief on 05.02.2018. Their cross examinations were deferred. But the defence prayed for
deferment of the cross on 23.03.2018. The cross-examination had to be deferred to 09.04.2018 for PW 2 and to 10.04.2018 for PW 3. Yet the present
petitioners chose not to cross-examine the victim girls. As such the learned trial court was justified in insisting on strictly following the mandates of
Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act.
I find no merit in the application for deferment of cross-examination of the witnesses as sought by the petitioners in this revisional application.
However, in the interest of justice, the learned trial court shall give a single day’s opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examination PWs 2 and 3
as per its convenience and thereafter conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible following the mandate of Section 35 of the POCSO Act. This
revisional application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the
parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.