p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.586 of 2025 Umesh Kujur and others …. Petitioners Mr. S. Bahadur, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 17.10.2025 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2025 at Annexure-5 passed in connection with Special G.R. Case No.123 of 2022 by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-PO-Special Court POCSO, Sundargarh, whereby, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.Ws 2 and 3 has been rejected. 3. Referring to the depositions of P.Ws. 2 and 3, who are the parents of the victim as at Annexure-2 series, it is submitted that they are to be asked a pertinent question as to when the latter disclosed to them about the alleged incident of rape, hence, therefore, both are to be recalled for further cross- examination but it has not been allowed by the learned court below. Since such further cross-examination is absolutely necessary, as further submitted, an opportunity should have been provided to the defence recalling P.Ws. 2 and 3 but it has been followed by the impugned order at Annexure-5. Page 2 of 2 4. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State justifies the impugned decision dated 3rd July, 2025 i.e. Annexure-5 with the submission that there is no need for any recall of P.Ws 2 and 3 since both have been questioned on the point and rightly, therefore, the learned court below declined such recall in terms Section 311 Cr.P.C. 5. Gone through the depositions of the witnesses and in particular, P.Ws. 2 and 3 at Annexure-2 series. In course of cross-examination, questions have been put to both the witnesses including as to when the victim informed them about the incident, which was already on record. Still the petitioners moved such an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and according to the Court, the same is unnecessary as it would be a repetition. The further conclusion is that as both the witnesses examined and cross-examined and finally discharged, both have revealed regarding the fact about the disclosure made by the victim, without commenting upon the merits of the evidence so far received by the learned court below, the Court is of the view that the learned court below did not err or commit any wrong in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and hence, the same calls for no interference. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer