1 2025:CGHC:26791 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1890 of 2025 1 - Naveen Kumar Lahri S/o Dauwaram Aged About 35 Years R/o Mangal Bazar, Kohka Chowki Smriti Nagar Durg, P.S. - Supela, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Supela, Chowki - Smriti Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 23/06/2025 1. This application u/s 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed against the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the learned ASJ (4th F.T.S.C), Special Judge (POCSCO Act), Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh whereby the application filed by the applicant u/s 348 of the BNSS 2023 has been rejected. A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.06.26 17:47:09 +0530 2 2. The applicant is facing trial for the offence u/ss 115, 119(1), 296, 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The victim who is 14 years old deaf and dumb boy was examined before the trial Court on 17.01.2025 where his statement was recorded by using gestures with the help of special educator, completed the examination and cross examination on that day. The newly engaged defence counsel filed application u/s 348 of BNSS before the trial Court on 26.03.2025 stating inter-alia that the detailed cross-examination of the said victim boy could not be done by the earlier defence counsel, therefore, application was filed to summon the victim child again for cross- examination. The said application was rejected by the trial Court. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the applicant u/s 348 of BNSS, 2023 seeking cross-examination of the victim boy. He submits that the earlier defence counsel had not asked question about the land dispute between the accused’s family and victim child’s family and further questions were also not specifically asked about the particular place where the incident took place. He further submits that the reports of the two different medical officers regarding the age of the victim child are also contradictory. 4. A perusal of the Annexure A-2 shows that the statement of the victim child, who is deaf and dumb from childhood was recorded on 17.01.2025 with the help of special educator. In chief examination and cross examination of the above child he has given answers 3 regarding the incident. Comprehensive questions have been asked regarding the place of incident, to which victim boy has given answers. In Question 34, he has also answered the question regarding the dispute between the two families. 5. As far as the age is concerned, the trial Court has rightly held that a deaf and dumb child or even a healthy child cannot be expected to give evidence regarding his age or tell the correct statement and the decision is taken on the basis of the child’s parents, school certificate and the evidence given by the school principal or other birth certificate and the evidence produced on it and not by believing the statement of the victim child. 6. As far as the question of any property or other dispute between the child’s family and accused’s family is concerned, as held by the trial Court the said dispute can also be resolved by asking questions from the parents of the child during cross examination. As regards the question of place, if there is any eye-witness in the vicinity or the investigating officer or the person present at the incident place, then he can be a competent witness. 7. As observed by the trial Court, the child is deaf and dumb from the beginning and his statement was completed with the help of a special educator and by changing the advocate on behalf of the accused, a new advocate cannot examine the previous examination and cross examination with his legal acumen to find out what are the flaws in it and those observations made by the trial Court cannot be said to be unsustainable. 4 8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 warranting interference in the instant petition. 9. In the result, this petition has no merit and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao