2025:UHC:2882 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1718 of 2022 21st April, 2025 Karan Singh Panda ………..Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Danish Khan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. Rangoli Purohit, B.H. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) The present C482 application has been filed by the applicant for quashing/setting aside the order and judgment dated 13.04.2022 & 04.08.2022 passed by the court of learned Upper Sessions Judge/F.T.S.C. Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No.299 of 2021, “State of Uttarakhand Vs. Karan Singh for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 506 of IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that applicant is accused under aforementioned sections and a trial is going on in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.S.C. Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. The star witness of the case i.e., P.W.1 the prosecutrix/victim was subjected to examination-in-chief on 13.04.2022 and as before the advocate of the applicant/accused could reach the court at 02:40 P.M. on the same day, his opportunity of cross-examination was closed on the ground that despite repeated call no one was present for cross-examination. Thereafter an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was made which was rejected by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the charges against the applicant are serious in nature and could have an effect on his entire life it is in the interest of justice that the said application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. be allowed and the prosecutrix/victim be subjected to cross-examination so that her veracity could be tested. But the learned trial court rejected the application moved 2025:UHC:2882 2 by the applicant vide impugned order dated 04.08.2022. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record and bare provision of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. which is quoted below:- “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.–Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” 5. This Court is of the opinion that it is the mandate of Section 311 Cr.P.C. that the court ought to recall and re-examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential in the just decision of the case. Cross examination being the only tool available for the defense to test the veracity of a prosecution witness and the fact that the Advocate of the applicant reached the court the very same day after lunch for cross- examining the victim but the learned trial judge had closed his opportunity to cross examine by then vide order dated 13.04.2022 and also rejected the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 04.08.2022, this Court is of the view that the present application ought to be allowed as the impugned order may cause undue hardship to the applicant and it is also essential for securing the ends of justice. 6. Accordingly C482 application is allowed. The order dated 13.04.2022 as well as order dated 04.08.2022, passed by learned trial court are hereby set aside. The application moved by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C stand allowed. 7. Learned trial court shall summon the prosecutrix/victim PW1 for cross-examination on 20.05.2025. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 21.04.2025 SK