Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68854 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6093 of 2024 Revisionist :- Gaurav @ Shivam Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sambhal at Chandausi in S.S.T. No. 150 of 2023 (State Vs. Kasif and Others) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 for their cross-examination on certain points, had been rejected. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the victim i.e. P.W. 1, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police, had stated that the revisionist has not committed any offence. The victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has also not levelled any allegation of rape against the revisionist. It has further been contended that P.W.1 & P.W. 2, while deposing before the trial court, had narrated an entirely new story and allegation has been levelled against the revisionist that he has committed rape. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that though it is true that P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 appeared before the trial court and they were cross-examined by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist before the trial court but certain relevant questions could not be asked from them, as to why the P.W. 1 has changed her stand from the stage of recording of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. till the stage of recording her testimony before the trial court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has vehemently argued that it is absolutely necessary that specific questions be asked from the P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 in respect of their change of stand so that the truth may come out before the trial court therefore, it was obligatory on the trial court to exercise its power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and to recall the P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 for their cross-examination by the revisionist. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State though has opposed this criminal revision but could not give any proper justification, as to when there is change of stand of the P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 then why the trial court may not exercise its discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and recall the P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 on one particular date and allow the revisionist to cross-examine them. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed with this criminal revision. 8. I find that the victim i.e. P.W. 1, while giving her statement before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., had categorically stated that the revisionist has not committed any offence. She in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had also stated that the revisionist has not committed rape but later on the P.W. 1 & P.W. 2, while deposing before the trial court, had come up with an entire new story and allegation of rape has been levelled against the revisionist. 9. The revisionist in the aforesaid circumstances filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 and for their cross-examination so as to ask them certain relevant questions, as to why the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have changed their stand, as the said questions are necessary to be asked for arriving at a correct conclusion in the matter. The trial court had rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. only on the ground that the revisionist had already been granted adequate opportunity to cross-examine the P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 therefore, there is no necessity to recall them and allow the revisionist to cross-examine them. 10. I find that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with the trial court is very special power and if the accused comes before the trial court that certain questions could not be asked from the witness, which are very relevant for arriving at a correct conclusion in the matter, in normal circumstances, the trial court should exercise its power to recall the witness. In the present case, I find that there is occasion for the trial court to recall the witnesses and allow the revisionist to cross-examine them on one particular date. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sambhal at Chandausi in S.S.T. No. 150 of 2023 (State Vs. Kasif and Others), is hereby set-aside . 12. The trial court is directed to recall the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 by fixing one particular date with a condition that the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist shall complete cross-examination of the witnesses on that particular date itself. 13. It is made clear that only one date would be fixed for the cross- examination of the P.W. 1 & P.W. 2. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad