[2025:RJ-JP:11444] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 243/2025 Subita Daughter of Shankarlal, Wife of Shri Narendra Kumar, Aged About 20 Years, Resident of Neem Ka Dhani Purvi Shyampura, Sikar, At Present Resident of Rampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajender Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 12/03/2025 1. This instant misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Commission for Protection of Child Right Act, 2005 Cases No.1, Sikar (Raj.), whereby, the application filed by the petitioner/victim under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for her re-examination was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-victim submits that the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the victim herself for the reason that earlier when the victim was examined before the trial Court she was under the influence of her parents and has given statements making allegations against the accused. Counsel further submits that when the petitioner/victim was examined before the trial Court she was minor and now she is [2025:RJ-JP:11444] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-243/2025] major and is capable to take her own decisions as regards her welfare. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner/victim was examined before the trial Court on 02.09.2021 & 30.09.2021. He further submits that the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been filed after passing of a period of more than three years on 05.12.2024. The facts stated in the application and delay in filing the same speaks about intention of the petitioner-applicant which seems to be for rescue of the accused in the case under their influence, who are on bail. 4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record including the statement of the victim recorded as PW-1. 5. The FIR No.260/2020 dated 09.08.2020 registered at Police Station Ranoli, District Sikar for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC in regard to the allegation of kidnapping of the petitioner. 6. After conclusion of the investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused- Phool Chand. The learned trial Court has framed the charge against the accused- Phool Chand for the offences punishable under Sections 344, 363, 376(2)(n) & 376(3) of IPC and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act and against the accused- Raju @ Rajendra for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(3) of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. 7. The petitioner/victim was examined on 02.09.2021 as PW-1 and was also cross-examined by the accused. After completion of the prosecution evidence the statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they were allowed to [2025:RJ-JP:11444] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-243/2025] submit the defence evidence. In the defence evidence, statements of DW-1 were also recorded. Thereafter, an application has been filed by the petitioner/victim under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 05.12.2024 stating therein that nothing wrong has been committed with her by the accused- Phool Chand and she has made allegations against the Phool Chand under the influence of her parents. She has also stated that accused- Raju @ Rajendra has also not committed any wrong with her. 8. The petitioner/victim was examined as PW-1 on 02.09.2021 & 30.09.2021. During her examination before the learned trial Court, the petitioner/victim has made specific allegations against the accused- Phool Chand & Raju @ Rajendra and now after passing of a period of more than three years, the petitioner/victim has filed this application for her re-examination. 9. The petitioner/victim examined before the trial Court and have made specific allegations against the accused- Phool Chand & Raju @ Rajendra and thereafter, she remained keep quiet for a long period of more than three years. Now she has moved an application for re-examination, saying that the accused- Phool Chand & Raju @ Rajendra have not committed any wrong with her. Such kind of application after a long period of more than three years, when the trial of the case is at the fag end i.e. the prosecution evidence is complete, statements of the accused have also been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and defence evidence has also been adduced. The application filed by the petitioner/victim at this belated stage and that too after more than three years of her examination before trial Court seems to be under some influence may be of the accused who are on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:11444] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-243/2025] 10. The statements given by a witness before the trial Court cannot be doubted or said to be under influence until and unless, there is some convincing material available on record. In the present case, the petitioner/victim has given her statement before the trial Court on 02.09.2021 & 30.09.2021 making specific allegations against the accused- Phool Chand & Raju @ Rajendra and now submitting an application for her re-examination stating therein that the accused- Phool Chand & Raju @ Rajendra has not committed any wrong with her can be said to be an application filed under the influence of the accused who are on bail. Therefore, no error has been committed by the Court below in dismissing the application with detailed observations. 11. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 12. Accordingly, this misc. petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar General (Litigants Welfare Fund), Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur within a period of three months from today and receipt of the same be submitted with the Registry. 13. The Registry shall see that if the receipt of payment of cost is not filed by the petitioner within the stipulated time, the matter be listed again before this Court after three months. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DIVYA SAINI /98