Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040006962025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./13/2025 Nabam Sanjay Son of Shri Nabam Sera, resident of Nirjuli Village -1, PO and PS Nirjuli, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented through the PP of AP 2:Smti Gongam Basar Age: 0 Occupation : Wife of Shri Kenbi Doke Lendo C/o Medical in Charge PHC Chimpu PO and PS Chimpu Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Tar Torum, Tayum Son,Nabam Taro,N Tate Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 08.05.2025 Heard Mr. T. Torum, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition under Sections 442 and 438 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed, praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated Page No.# 2/3 22.04.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Yupia in Criminal Misc. Case No. 119/2025, corresponding to POCSO Case No. 13/2022, under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which is now pending before the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Yupia. 3. From the order, it is seen that during the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he expressed his willingness to examine himself and 4 (four) more persons as defence witnesses. Subsequently, he examined himself as DW-1 and also examined DW-2 and DW-3. As per the order impugned, it is an admitted position that the petitioner wanted to summon 2(two) other defence witnesses through the Court. 4. Primarily, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to adduce 2(two) additional witnesses, mainly on the grounds that there is a delay in the trial and the charges were framed on 28.06.2022 and till date, the prosecution could not be completed and defence sought adjournment on earlier occasions to adduce DWs but subsequently could not produce the DWs, and that the case is fixed for final argument. 5. This Court is of the opinion that this petition can be disposed of at the motion stage itself without issuing notice to any other parties inasmuch as, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error by not allowing the defence to adduce the additional witnesses. It is a settled proposition of law that the right of defence by an accused is a very valuable right and such right should not be denied lightly inasmuch as violation of same will infringe the right of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes liberty. This Court cannot be ignorant of the concern of the learned Sessions Judge for early disposal of the prosecution, however, same shall not be at the cost of the right of defence of the accused. Page No.# 3/3 6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 22.04.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Yupia in Criminal Misc. Case No. 119/2025, corresponding to POCSO Case No. 13/2022 stands set aside and quashed. The petitioner is permitted to adduce evidence. However, the petitioner accused shall not take unnecessary adjournment in this regard and he will complete his evidence by 2(two) months. 7. It is needless to say that the accused is to take necessary steps for summoning the witnesses. If he fails to do so, the learned Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to pass necessary order(s). 8. The Criminal Revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant