Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010228222025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./427/2025 SRI AJAY SHAKHARU @ SAKHARU S/O- SRI BRAJABASHI SHAKHARU. R/O- VILLAGE 3 NO. SANTIPUR, MAJOR BASTI, P.O.- JAMUGURI PANCHALI P.S.AND DIST- DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN-787057 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SRI ARADHAN SHAKHARU S/O- KARTIK SHAKHARU MAJOR BASTI P.O. - JAMUGURI PANCHALI P.S.AND DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-78705 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BARUAH, MS. P HANDIQUE,MR. P K BORDOLOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 14.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Sections 438/442 read with Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Ajay Shakharu @ Sakharu impugning Page No.# 2/3 the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Dhemaji in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 9/2024 whereby it has declined to examine the witnesses list which is given by the petitioner in Petition No. 1128/2025 as Court witness. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is facing a trial under Sections 376-AB/511 of the IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 before the Court of learned Special Judge, Dhemaji in Special (POCSO) Case No. 9/2024. He submits that in the said case, the prosecution witness has been closed and the petitioner had filed an application before the Trial Court which was registered as Petition No. 1128/2025 wherein he has mentioned all the names of eight witnesses who are relevant for the defence of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not have any control over the said witness mainly the witness Nos. 7 and 8, namely, Nakul Das and Manik Das and, therefore, he prays for examining the said witnesses as Court witness. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in as much as in the impugned order itself the Trial Court has made very clear that the witnesses intended to be examined by the petitioner may be examined as defence witnesses. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 7. It appears from the application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court which was registered as Petition No. 1128/2025 that the petitioner had Page No.# 3/3 named eight witnesses whom he want to examine in support of his defence. 8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 29.07.2025, it appears that the Trial Court has categorically stated therein that the petitioner has not yet entered upon his defence and he shall have all the right to examine those witnesses in his defence which leaves no doubt that the Trial Court has not foreclosed the prayer made by the petitioner for examining the witnesses whom he has listed in the said application. 9. The only refusal by the Trial Court is to examine the said witness as the Court witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. The power of Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 348 of BNSS) is to summon any person as witness, though not summoned as witness, and if his evidence appears to be essential for a just decision in any of the case. However, in the instant case, in the impugned order, Trial Court has made it clear that all those witnesses who are sought to be examined as Court witness may be examined by the petitioner as defence witnesses. Hence, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the impugned order. If the petitioner is unable to produce the said witnesses on his own, he may pray before the Trial Court, at an appropriate stage, to summons those witnesses as defence witnesses. 11. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 12. With the above observations, this criminal revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant