1 2025:CGHC:33939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2252 of 2025 1 - Surendra Jangde S/o Santram Jangde Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No.-02, Shashaholi, Tilda, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer- Police Station - Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 18/07/ 2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, against the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Special Case (POCSO) No. 36/2024, whereby the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.21 10:14:14 +0530 2 petitioner seeking re-examination of the victim has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that earlier, during the trial, previous counsel was representing/pursuing the case of the defence/accused before the learned trial Court. On 08.08.2024, the examination of the prosecutrix took place. Due to some personal difficulties, the petitioner decided to change his earlier counsel and engaged a new counsel, and his associate advocated to represent/pursue his case before the learned trial Court. Subsequently, all the records in relation to the pending trial were perused by the new counsel, and his associate advocated. While perusing the records, the new counsel for the petitioner ascertained that the proper examination of the prosecutrix had not taken place in relation to her age and also in relation to other quintessential facts before the learned Trial Court through the earlier counsel. She has not been asked to refute the documents presented by the prosecution regarding her age. Admittedly, the proper examination of the prosecutrix regarding her age was important for the just decision of the case, particularly considering the other evidence, such as the FSL being turned out to be negative and no injury being found on the prosecutrix in her medical examination 3 report. Therefore, an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to re-examine the victim, which has been dismissed. Hence, the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 is liable to be quashed, and the matter be remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction to consider the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioner, a fresh and thereby, pass an order for recalling the prosecutrix before the learned trial Court for re-examination. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the order impugned. 4. Upon reviewing the available material and the order impugned, it is clear that on 27.08.2024 and 28.08.2024, the victim and the victim’s elder father were cross- examined in detail by the learned Advocate of the accused, Shri Sudeep Verma. The trial Court considered the fact that the statements of important witnesses in the case have been recorded, and the case is fixed for the remaining prosecution evidence. In such a situation, the advocate of the accused cannot be allowed to make up for the deficiency. Hence, rejected the application. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the material available on record, it cannot 4 be considered appropriate to call the victim or any witness again for cross-examination on the ground of change of counsel, I do not see any illegality or perversity in the order impugned to interfere with the order. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu