1 2025:CGHC:53791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3305 of 2025 • Khoman Nishad S/o Madan Nishad Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Water Tank, Nagpura, Police Station- Pulgaon, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Pulgaon, Out Post Nagpura, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. AG. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 04.11.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 26.07.2025 (Annexure A-1), by which, learned Additional Session Judge, Durg, (CG) has rejected the application of petitioner filed under Section 348 of BNSS (corresponding to 311 of Cr.PC) seeking recall of the victim/prosecutrix (PW-1) for further cross- 2 examination. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that victim was examined and cross-examined before trial Court on 06.03.2025, however, petitioner/accused moved an application before the trial Court seeking further cross-examination of the victim in order to bring on record correct facts and circumstances, which could not be elicited during examination of victim on 06.03.2025 and are also material for just disposal of the trial. However, the trial Court by the impugned order has erroneously rejected the application of the petitioner without determining that further cross-examination of victim is very essential for just decision of the case. Object behind Section 311 of Cr.PC is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either parties in bringing valuable evidence before the trial Court. Rejection of said application in the given facts and circumstances of the case would amount to failure of justice and it would also amount to abuse of process of the Court. 3. Learned State Counsel opposing submission of counsel for petitioner would submit that the victim was already examined and cross-examined extensively by counsel for defence, hence, trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the order of trial Court placed on record. 5. Deposition sheet of victim is placed on record as Annexure A-3. 3 Perusal of the deposition sheet of the victim reveals that counsel appearing on behalf of applicant has been afforded reasonable opportunity to examine and cross-examine the victim and he has also duly cross-examined the victim on almost all points, there is no sufficient ground to recall the victim. 6. Trial Court has vide power under Section 311 CrPC to examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case at any time. Section 311 of Cr.PC reads as under :- “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. -- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. 7. Under section 311 of Cr.PC, it is for the Court to consider whether re-examination of witness is essential or not for just decision of the case. 8. For the foregoing reason/discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned order Annexure A-1 passed by trial Court in rejecting application of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/- 4