Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010270552025 2025:GAU-AS:17331 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1571/2025 CHAMPAK DAS S/O NARAYAN DAS R/O- KACHADHARA SATGAON, JALUGUTI, P.S- MIKIRBHETA, PIN- 782417 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, STATE OF ASSAM. 2:GAUTAM DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -SATGAON P.S.- MIKIRBHETA DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ALAM, MR. MASUM ALAM,MR B M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 15.12.2025 Heard Mr. M. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 2. This criminal petition under Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 is preferred to assail an Order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Page No.# 2/3 Judge [POCSO], Morigaon [‘the Special Court’, for short]. By the Order dated 01.07.2025, the Special Court rejected a petition, Petition no. 1459/2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC] read with Section 138, Evidence Act seeking to recall the prosecutrix for her re-examination. With Petition no. 1459/2025, the petitioner mentioned the questions which were to be put to the prosecutrix during her contemplated re- examination. 3. The father of the prosecutrix/victim lodged a First Information Report [FIR] before the In-Charge, Jaluguti Police Out Post under Mikirbheta Police Station on 27.10.2018 against two accused persons including the petitioner herein. In the FIR, it was inter-alia alleged that at 05-30 p.m. on 26.10.2018, the accused persons committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the prosecutrix/victim, who was 11 years of age at that point of time. The FIR was registered as Mikirbheta Police Station case no. 385/2018 under Sections 376[2][i]/34, IPC read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012. 3.1. After investigation, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. 262/2019 on 30.09.2019 finding a prima facie case well established against the two accused persons. After submission of the Charge-Sheet, the case was registered as POCSO Case no. 111/2019. 3.2. After framing of charge, the trial proceeded with examination of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecutrix/victim was examined as P.W.1 on 31.03.2023 and she was thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons by the learned defence counsel on 31.03.2023 itself. Subsequently, the prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined and cross-examined during the period from 07.02.2024 to 09.06.2024. 3.3. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined under Section 313, CrPC on 01.07.2023. It was on 01.07.2023, the accused persons submitted petition which was registered and numbered as Petition no. 1459/2025. 4. The Special Court in the Order dated 01.07.2025 has observed that Section 138 of the Page No.# 3/3 Evidence Act lays down the order of examination. As per Section 138 of the Evidence Act, it is the prosecution only who can make a prayer for re-examination of the victim. The Special Court had also gone through the questions, contemplated by the accused persons for putting it to the prosecutrix/victim, if the prayer for re-examination was to be allowed and found those questions unnecessary for the just decision of the case. 5. As per section 138 of the Evidence Act, witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then [if the adverse party so desires] cross-examined, then [if the party calling him so desires] re- examined. As per Section 138, re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter. There is, thus, no provision for further cross-examination of the prosecution witness in the course of re-examination unless the prosecution side itself calls the witness for re-examination. 6. Further, this Court upon going through the contemplated questions mentioned in Petition no. 1459/2025 finds itself in agreement with the learned Special Court. The questions mentioned in Petition no. 1459/2025 are ones which are meant for filling up the lacunae purportedly not asked during cross-examination. 7. The petition, Petition no. 1459/2025 filed after more than two years three months after closure of evidence of the prosecutrix/victim, P.W.1 is found to be devoid of any merits. 8. In view of the above position of law and fact situation obtaining in the case, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the Order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Special court in POCSO Case no. 111/2019. Resultantly, this criminal petition is found to be devoid of any merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant