1 2025:CGHC:1312 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 40 of 2025 1 - Shahid Alias Chishti Ansari S/o Reyazuddin Aged About 24 Years R/o Mahavirganj, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/01/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. Petitioner has preferred this CRMP under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suaksha Sanhita, 2023 to set-aside the order dated 29/11/2024, passed in Special Sessions Trial (POCSO) No.77/2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.S.C.(POCSO Act) Ramanujganj, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of CrPC. has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner had committed sexual NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.01.20 16:42:32 +0530 2 intercourse with minor victim from November 2021 to April 2022. Report was lodged and charge-sheet was filed under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 4. During course of trial, petitioner filed an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C for recalling the victim's parents for cross-examination which was essential for the just decision of the case as victim's father has registered the victim's date of birth as 05.01.2005 in the primary school Gamhariya and the victim's date of birth as 30.06.2005 in the primary school Mahavirganj. I have perused the order of the trial Court and application filed by the Petitioner and annexed documents. 5. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the application filed by the petitioner holding that applications submitted by the Petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are appearing to be baseless and the evidence of the victim's father has been recorded in the case and the victim has been cross-examined in detail to his counsel regarding the age of the victim. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim’s parents are important witnesses for the just and proper adjudication of this case. He further submits that the trial Court held that applications submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 of CrPC are baseless and the evidence of the victim’s father has been recorded in the case if the witnesses is recalled for examination the trial is not going to be affected in any matter and it would have given opportunity of fair and just trial to the petitioner. He also submit that the trial Court wrongly held the application filed by the petitioner is late of about 1 year and 8 months, therefore recalling the parents of victim for re-examination was filed for just and proper decision of the case as earlier counsel could not cross- 3 examine the witnesses hence parents of the victim may be recalled to give evidence. 7. I have find that accused filed admission and discharge register (Annexure-P/4) before the trial Court in defence and also filed ration card and other related documents regarding the age of the victim. Dakhil-kharij register is a public document and on perusal of the document there is difference between dakhil-kharij register which has been filed by the prosecution the date of birth is mentioned as 05/01/2005, in the primary school Gamhariya and the victim’s date of birth as 30/06/2005 in the primary school Mahavirganj. The date of birth registered by the father of the victim and there is discrepancies in date of birth of the victim in both of the dakhil-kharij register, therefore, I am of the view that the father of the victim is necessary to be recalled for proving the correct date of birth of the victim which will also provide proper opportunity of defence to the petitioner/accused too. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The order dated 29/11/2024 is set-aside and it is directed that the trial Court shall recall the father of the victim and give proper opportunity to the petitioner/accused to cross- examine the victim's father on the issue of date of birth of the prosecutrix only. 9. With the above observation, petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde