1 2025:CGHC:12747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 967 of 2025 1 - Nand Kumar Kurre S/o Lt. Jageshwar Kurre Aged About 18 Years R/o Kotmisonar, Police Station Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer- Police Station Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Xyz Nill ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 18/03/2025 1. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, (POCSO Act), District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G) in Special Criminal Case No. 50 of 2024 wherein the learned Court has rejected the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for recalling of the prosecution witness No.1 (mother of the prosecutrix) and applicant No.2 (Prosecutrix) on the ground of re-examination of the witnesses with regard to the age of the prosecutrix, but the same has not been considered by the learned Court and rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case, are that on 18-05-2024 at night when the prosecutrix went for the toilet behind her house, there the applicant who is the neighbor of the prosecutrix came near the prosecutrix with VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.05.19 12:39:05 +0530 2 bad intention and grab and press the mouth of the prosecutrix and took her at the courtyard of her house where he committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. Subsequently the father of the prosecutrix heard some noise and went behind the house at courtyard where he found that the applicant had committed sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix and ran away by leaving the prosecutrix behind. Thereafter the prosecutrix and her father went before the police station and made complaint against the applicant. Based on the complaint, the police registered the FIR against the applicant bearing crime No.246/2023 for the offence punishable under section 376(3) of IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act. 3. The charge-sheet was filed abefore the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court (in short FFTC POCSO Act) District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 50/2024 and trial commenced. 4. During the cross-examination of the above-mentioned witnesses the query with regard to the date of birth of the prosecutrix could not be raised properly and further there were some contradictions also which was needed to be asked but the same could not be cross examined due to short time period. therefore The jurisdictional error committed by the Learned Trial Court deserves to be corrected in the interest of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 17-12-2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court (POCSO Act), District Janjgir-Champa (C.G) has been passed in an erroneous manner, hence is liable to be set-aside and the Learned Court could have appreciated the fact that there is some queries with regards to the age of the prosecutrix which needed to be enquired by way of 3 cross examination, but the same could not be done due to some unfortunate reason, in the interest of justice, but the same has not been considered by the Learned Court. He further submits that the Learned Court could have appreciated the fact that there is some queries with regards to the age of the prosecutrix which needed to be enquired by way of cross examination, but the same could not be done due to some unfortunate reason, in the interest of justice, but the same has not been considered by the Learned Court. He also submits that the Learned Court could have appreciated the fact that the applicant is just aged about 18 years and there is whole life pending in front of him and if due to any mistake any adverse order pass against the applicant, his whole life will go in the verge of darkness. He also relied a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajajram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2013) 14 SCC 461. Therefore, he prays for set-aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure-A-1). 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that impugned order passed by the learned Court below, is proper, legal and strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity or illegality in the same. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the final report, charge sheet and other documents annexed to the petition. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the parties, document/material available on record and evidence of victim and mother of the victim, I have found that the mother of the victim has already been cross examined regarding age of the victim, on that basis learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, therefore, this Court has considered view that the order impugned there is neither 4 illegality nor perversity and there is no jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court, hence, instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. This Court clarify that observations made in this order are prima facie and based on charge sheet and not the correctness of the allegations made in the charge-sheet, the trial Court is not to be influenced at all by findings/observations while deciding the case on merits. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE vaishali