IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 236 of 2025 --------- Santosh Kumar Mahto @ Santosh Kumar S/o Rajnarayan Mahto, aged about 27 years, residents of village-Lolo, P.O.-Gandkey, P.S.-Rajrappa, District Ramgarh ..… Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P. --------- 03/26.03.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the Order dated 13.01.2025, passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in M.C.A. No. 399 of 2024, arising out of Special POCSO Case No. 15 of 2023 in connection with Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 05 of 2023, for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section-4 & 8 of POCSO Act, by which the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ramgarh has rejected the petition dated 19.8.2024 under Section 341 of BNSS Act, which was filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner for recalling of witness for further cross-examination of P.W.-3, who is the Victim-informant of this case. 2. As per F.I.R., it is alleged that the petitioner had forcibly established sexual relationship with the victim girl and threatened her of dire consequences and had taken her mobile phone. -1- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the mother of this petitioner had instituted F.I.R. against the father of the victim girl, i.e. Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 132 of 2021 for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and hence, in retaliation the victim girl has instituted the instant case against the petitioner. It is submitted that due to communication gap between the petitioner and the lawyer, some vital question could not be put to the victim girl. It is submitted that the Court has ample power to recall any witness for re-examination at any stage of trial and hence, the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to further cross examine the victim girl. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the impugned order is fit and proper and this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the impugned order clearly shows that the victim girl had been fully cross- examined by the defence side and hence, this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 5. Perused the F.I.R. and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and also the evidence of the victim girl examined as P.W.3 in Special POCSO Case No. 15 of 2023 and also the Petition dated 19.08.2024 filed by the petitioner under -2- Section 341 of BNSS Act. 6. It appears that the petition filed by the petitioner is vague as to on which material point the victim girl could not be cross examined earlier by the defence side. 7. From perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, i.e. the victim girl, it appears that she has been thoroughly cross-examined and the learned Court below has rightly observed that the victim girl-P.W.3 has been cross-examined at length. 8. From the impugned order, it appears that the prosecution evidence is closed and the case has been fixed for recording the statement of the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 22.01.2025. 9. This Court finds that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. 10. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application No.236 of 2025 is hereby dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m. -3-