Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2023 DAILYLAW 960 (ORI)

PABITRAMOHAN MOHANTA v. STATE OF ODISHA

CRLMC/4838/2023 · 2026-08-19

Sibo Sankar Mishra

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4838 of 2023 CNR- ODHC010864932023 Pabitramohan Mohanta …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.- Mr. Samvit Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Represented by Adv.- Mrs. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 02. ORDER 19.08.2026 (Hybrid mode) 1. Heard Mr. Samvit Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Sarita Moharana learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court under POCSO Act, Baripada in C.T. Case No.26 of 2018, whereby his application filed U/s.311 of Cr. P.C. to recall P.W.2 for further cross-examination has been turned down. The learned trial Court has primarily turned down the application stating that there is a bar U/s.33(5) of the POCSO Act to recall the child witness repeatedly. 3. Mr. Samvit Mohanty, learned counsel for the Subhasis petitioner, by citing a judgment in the case of Tapas Swain vs. State of Orissa and another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1466 submits that the bar provided U/s. 33(5) is not an absolute bar. Moreover, the present petitioner is no more a child. Therefore, the ground on which the trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner for recalling of the said witness is devoid of merit. 4. The petitioner is facing a serious charges U/Ss. 363/376(2)(n)/294/506 of IPC r/w Sections 3(1) (r) (s)(w)(i)(ii)/3(2)(v)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, he has a right to defend himself particularly in view of seriousness of the charges. 5. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, directing the trial Court to provide a single opportunity to the petitioner to further examine P.W.2. The learned trial Court shall fix a particular date for recording of the evidence of P.W.2 and the petitioner shall conclude the further examination without seeking unnecessary adjournment on that day. 6. With the aforementioned observation, the CRLMC stands allowed. (Sibo Sankar Mishra) Judge Designation: Personal Assistant Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.