AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 279 wordsAlok Kumar Verma, J
The proposed Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 13.12.2023, passed by learned Fast Track Court/ Special Judge (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No.121 of 2021, “State vs. Radheshayam”, by which, the learned Judge has rejected the Application of the revisionist, filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Code”).
Heard Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the proposed revisionist and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA for the State.
A charge-sheet was filed against the revisionist – accused on 20.10.2021. Charges under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”), Section 354D IPC and Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were framed on 17.05.2022. The examination-in-chief of the victim (PW1), aged about 5 years, was recorded on 21.07.2022. Revisionist was present before the Trial Court that day. Cross-examination of the victim was not conducted. Therefore, the revisionist’s opportunity to cross-examine the victim was closed. The revisionist filed an Application under Section 311 of the Code on 02.09.2022 to summon the victim for cross-examination. On the same day i.e. on 02.09.2022, the said Application, filed by the revisionist, was rejected by the Trial Court.
The said order dated 02.09.2022 was never challenged by the revisionist. Once the application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. The second application with a similar prayer would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier order which is not permissible under criminal law. Therefore, the proposed Criminal Revision (No.26 of 2024) is dismissed at the admissions stage.