[2025:RJ-JP:48989] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7106/2025 Sandeep S/o Lalaram Bairwa, Aged About 27 Years, Bithola, Ps Sadar Tonk, Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anirudh Tyagi with Mr.Saurabh Vaishnav Mr.Sunil Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Court of Special Judge POCSO Cases, Tonk by which the application submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor/ prosecution under Section 348 BNSS has been allowed and a witness Haribhajan has been ordered to be summoned from Government Upper Primary School, Bithhola, District Tonk for the purpose of exhibiting the school record of the prosecutrix. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 376 (3), 376(2)(n), 504 & 506 IPC and Sections 3/4(2) & 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act. Counsel submits that after completion of the trial, when case was posted for final arguments, the petitioner submitted written submissions on 11.04.2024, thereafter, the case [2025:RJ-JP:48989] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7106/2025] was posted for arguments. Counsel submits that now at the fag end of the trial, in order to fill the lacuna left by the prosecution, the application has been submitted to summon one Haribhajan from the school to exhibit the documents of the prosecutrix. Counsel submits that the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill the lacuna left during the course of trial. 3. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neha Begum & ors. Vs. State of Assam & Anr. while deciding Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3910/2024 on 02.09.2024 and in the case of Sandesh Vs. State of Harayana & Anr. while deciding CRR 361-2022 (O&M) on 18.04.2024. Counsel submits that in view of the arguments raised hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the Court below may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the allegations of committing rape with the minor victim, the school record of the victim with regard to her age were available on record, but the same could not be exhibited as the Principal of the school has been impleaded as an accused and he is also facing the trial. Counsel submits that due to some oversight, the Investigating Officer could not exhibit these documents as the same are essential for just decision of the case, hence, under these circumstances, the trial Court has not committed an error in allowing the application submitted by the prosecution for summoning the witness Haribhajan for the purpose of exhibiting the aforesaid documents. Lastly, he argued that the powers [2025:RJ-JP:48989] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7106/2025] contained under Section 311 Cr.P.C. lies with the Court, which can be exercised in the interest of justice. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 376 (3), 376(2)(n), 504 & 506 IPC and Sections 3/4(2) & 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act. During the course of trial, the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded and evidence of the prosecution was completed and the case was posted for final arguments and even written submissions were also submitted by the petitioner. At this stage, a fact was brought into the notice of the trial Court by the Public Prosecutor/ prosecution that though school documents pertaining to the age of the victim are available on record, but due to oversight of the Investigating Officer, these documents could not be marked as exhibited. The fact was also noticed by the Court that even the Headmaster of the said school, where the victim was studying, was also impleaded as an accused under Section 120-B IPC. 7. Now, the question remains for consideration of this Court is as to whether at such fag end of the trial, such application can be entertained though an argument has been raised by counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill the lacuna left by it during the trial. 8. The Section 311 Cr.P.C. dealt with the power of the Court to summon the material witnesses, it says that any Court at any stage of the trial could summon any person as a witness or [2025:RJ-JP:48989] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7106/2025] examined such person or recall or re-examine any person already examine, if his evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case. 9. In the instant case, the documents with regard to the age of the victim are available on record, but same could not be exhibited due to an oversight, but exhibition of these documents through witness is essential for just decision of the case. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) CrLJ 152 (SC) has held that power of the Court to recall any witness or to summon any witness can be invoked even at the stage when evidence of both the sides is closed, so long as the Court retains seisin of the criminal proceedings. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court the trial Court has not committed any error in accepting the application submitted by the Public Prosecutor and in summoning the witness Haribhajan for the purpose of exhibiting the documents available on the record. The petitioner would be at liberty to cross-examine him, hence, under these circumstances, this Court finds no error in the order impugned, which warrants any interference of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /41