Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010153662025 2025:GAU-AS:9745 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./864/2025 AMINUR HAQUE @ AMINUL S/O- KUTUBUDDIN AHMED. R/O- NUWAPARA, SAMANNAY PATH, HOUSE NO.48. P.S.- SATGAON, GUWAHATI-27, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:RUKIYA BEGUM W/O- LATE BABUL ALI. R/O- NUWAPARA MILIJULI PATH P.S.- SATGAON GUWAHATI-27 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J H SAIKIA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY 28/07/2025 Heard Mr. J H Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent No. 1. 2. The instant criminal petition under Section 528 read with Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is preferred for setting aside and quashing an Order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati (the Special Court) in Sessions (Special) Case No. 267/2024. By the Order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Court, the petitioner’s application for recalling the victim who has been examined as PW1, has been rejected. 3. A First Information Report [FIR] was lodged by the victim’s mother as the informant before the Officer-In-Charge of Satgaon Police Station on 28.06.2021 alleging inter-alia that on 26.06.2021, the petitioner had committed an act of penetrative sexual assault upon the victim. The FIR was registered as Satgaon Police Station Case No. 180/2021 for the offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 4. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid. Upon appearance of the petitioner as the accused before the learned Special Court, a charge was framed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. On having pleaded not guilty to the charge by the accused, the trial proceeded. During the course of the trial, the victim has been examined as PW1 on 25.04.2025. The victim was also thoroughly cross-examined by the defence on that day. After examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the evidence of the victim was closed on 25.04.2025. On 25.04.2025, the informant was also examined- in-chief and cross-examined and her evidence was also closed on 25.04.2025. On 27.06.2025, the Medical Officer was examined. 5. Subsequently, on 17.05.2025, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 348, BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to recall the victim for further examination and to allow the defence to put additional questions to the victim as well as to clarify the statements given by the victim during cross-examination. 6. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following part of the victim’s Page No.# 3/3 testimony:- “11. On that day accused attempted to do bad act with me but he could not succeed.” 7. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that additional questions are required to be put to the victim for clarification with regard to the above part. 8. The object underlying Section 348, BNSS (earlier, Section 311 Cr.P.C.) is that there may not be a failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor for exercise of power under Section 348 BNSS, is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The discretionary power vested under Section 348 BNSS has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice. 9. The testimony of the victim has been annexed as Annexure-B to this criminal petition. 10. On perusal, it is noticed that the victim has been examined in-chief by the prosecution and thereafter, she was thoroughly cross-examined by the defence putting all the necessary questions to her. The parts, referred above, are for appreciation at the end of the trial. By no stretch, clarification is required of the said part for just decision of the case. 11. In the above view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the instant criminal petition. The criminal petition, being devoid of any reasons, is dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant