1 2025:CGHC:7769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 555 of 2025 1 - Ram Narayan Soni S/o Dev Sahay Soni Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kirit, P.S.- Nawagarh, Distt.- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Station House Officer Champa, Distt.- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13/02/2025 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 16.01.2025 by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) whereby the learned Court below has rejected the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recall of witnesses. 2 2. Brief facts of the case is that the complainant lodged a written report on 20.07.2022 alleging that she was working as a sales girl in the jewellery shop of the Petitioner and the petitioner on 05.04.2022 committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, it continued. The Champa police registered the case under Section 376 of the IPC and charge sheet was filed against the petitioner on 04.09.2022. After framing of charges, the petitioner was put up on trial where the complainant was examined as PW-1 on 02.01.2023. The applicant preferred an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling of prosecution witness no. 1/complainant which was rejected by the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that to clarify the ambiguity and cull out the truth with regards to the complainant’s statement that she was ravished before 05.04.2022, the re- examination of P.W.-1/complainant is warranted in the eyes of law. 4. Learned counsel for the state contended that the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the victim has been examined and re-examined by the defence at length and there is no need to recall the victim. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The petitioner herein has submitted before the trial court that the victim of the case (PW 01) has stated in paragraph 18 of her statement that the accused has committed rape upon her even 3 before 05-04-2022, but she has not clarified that when it happened and the report or complaint about the incident of rape before 05-04-2022 is not made by the victim. And, if any complaint has been made then what action has been taken, the victim (PW 01) is silent in this regard and it is necessary to ask questions in the cross-examination in this regard. Therefore, the victim should be summoned to the court for cross-examination. 7. Record shows that the victim (PW-1) has been examined and cross-examined at length on 02.01.2023, 03.01.2023 and 04.01.2023. As per the application, the petitioner wants to ask question to the victim relating to the incident of rape that happened with her prior 05.04.2022 whereas the victim has already deposed in her statement that she does not remember the date when it happened. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 8. This Court is of the opinion that the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) does not suffer from any illegality or perversity or jurisdictional error and needs no interference. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima