1 922CrWP1159.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 922 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1159 OF 2026 Poptya @ Popat Shahadev Borude Age: 25 Years, Ocew: Nil, R/o: Chede-chandgaon, Tq: Shevgaon, Dist: Ahmednagar. ...Petitioner VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...Respondents ... Mr. Ajinkya Joshi h/f Mr. Sharad V. Natu - Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. D. J. Patil - APP for the State … CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2026 FINAL ORDER : - 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. By consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, who is accused in Special Case No. 153 of 2024, pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Ahmednagar, has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 21st July 2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar, below Exhibit 44 in Special Case No. 153 of 2024. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge has permitted the prosecution to re-examine 2026:BHC-AUG:42804 2 922CrWP1159.2026.odt prosecution witness no. 4, restricting such re-examination to the questions concerning the alleged marriage of the victim. The petition specifically seeks quashing of the said order. 3. The record indicates that during cross-examination of prosecution witness no. 4, the learned Public Prosecutor sought permission to put leading questions to the witness on the ground that he was not deposing in accordance with his earlier statement. The defense thereafter cross-examined the witness. In the course of such cross- examination, certain evidence came to be elicited from PW4 concerning the alleged marriage of the victim. Thereafter, on very same day, the prosecution moved Exhibit 44 seeking permission to further examine the same witness. 4. The learned Special Judge, after hearing both the sides, noticed that the statement regarding victim's marriage had emerged during cross-examination and accordingly permitted the prosecution to re-examine PW4 on that point. The order itself records that the prosecution desired clarification as to how PW4 acquired knowledge regarding the alleged marriage of the victim. The operative reasoning of the trial court is that since the new fact regarding the marriage was introduced during cross-examination, re-examination would be permitted solely in relation to that aspect. 3 922CrWP1159.2026.odt 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Exhibit 44 itself contains no adequate reasons, and the prosecution cannot be permitted to re-examine its witnesses merely because an answer favorable to the defense has emerged during the cross- examination. It is further submitted that the fact concerning the victim's marriage is already before the court through the evidence of prosecution witness no. 3, and therefore the exercise is unnecessary and amounts to permitting the prosecution to fill up lacunae in its evidence. This is substantially also the foundation of the challenge in the petition. 6. There is no dispute that the power to recall, or further examine a witness cannot be exercised as a matter of course. Such power cannot be employed merely to afford an opportunity to the party to repair an omission in its evidence, or to reopen a completed line of examination, because some answer subsequently appears inconvenient. At the same time, the power of the court to permit a limited further examination, cannot be treated as altogether excluded where a new matter emerges during cross-examination, and an explanation in respect thereof is considered necessary for a proper appreciation of the evidence. What is material is the purpose for which the witness is sought to be re-examined/further examined, the stage at which such request is made, the nature of the matter sought to be clarified, and the 4 922CrWP1159.2026.odt prejudice, if any, likely to be caused to the opposite party. In the facts of the present case, the prosecution has not sought to introduce altogether independent piece of evidence after completion of the trial. The application was moved on the same day, after the disputed statement emerged during the cross-examination of PW4. More importantly, the learned Special Judge has not granted an unrestricted opportunity to the prosecution. The permission has been confined to the question concerning the alleged marriage of the victim. 7. The submission that another prosecution witness has already deposed about the marriage of the victim, would not by itself render any clarification from PW4 impermissible. PW3 has deposed regarding her own relationship and proximity to the family of the victim. The evidentiary basis of the source of knowledge of PW4, is necessarily distinct. If PW4 has himself introduced a particular fact in cross- examination, the circumstance that another witness has also spoken on the same subject does not necessarily answer how PW4 claims knowledge of that fact. 8. However, the apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioner cannot be said to be wholly unfounded. Merely because the prosecution is permitted to re-examine PW4, the opportunity cannot be converted or utilized by the prosecution for carrying out fresh cross- 5 922CrWP1159.2026.odt examination of PW4, who is a prosecution witness, or into a device to introduce material which was otherwise omitted from the prosecution evidence. The expression ‘re-examination’ has a definite forensic purpose. It is intended principally to explain matters arising out of cross- examination and cannot ordinarily be expanded into a second examination-in-chief. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to completely set aside the order below Exhibit 44. At the same time, in order to safeguard the right of the accused and to ensure that the permission granted by the learned Special Judge does not travel beyond the legitimate scope of re-examination, the impugned order requires to be clarified and suitably restricted. 10. Accordingly, the prosecution shall be permitted to re- examine prosecution witness no. 4 only with regard to the statement made by him in cross-examination concerning the alleged marriage of the victim, and in particular, the source or basis of the knowledge in that regard. The prosecution shall not, under the cover of such re-examination, be permitted to reopen the examination-in-chief of PW4 and/or to introduce an altogether independent version of the incident, repeat matters already forming part of his examination-in-chief, and/or put questions intended merely to contradict, impeach or substitute the 6 922CrWP1159.2026.odt answers already elicited in his cross-examination. Learned Special Judge shall regulate the questions accordingly. 11. Here, however, in the course of such limited re-examination, if any new matter is introduced which was not part of the earlier evidence of PW4, the petitioner-accused shall be afforded an adequate opportunity to further cross-examine PW4, strictly confined to such new matter. The right of the accused in that regard shall remain unaffected. The exercise of re-examination shall, as far as applicable, be completed on the same day and shall not be permitted to result in avoidable adjournments or delay in the trial, particularly having regard to the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 2024. 12. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the truthfulness, reliability or evidentiary value of the statement of PW4 concerning the alleged marriage of the victim. The same shall be independently appreciated by the learned Special Judge at the appropriate stage along with the rest of the evidence. 13. Subject to the aforesaid clarification and restriction, the order dated 21st July 2026 passed below Exhibit 44 in Special Case No.153 of 2024 does not warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7 922CrWP1159.2026.odt 14. The Criminal Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of subject to the directions contained herein above. All contentions of all the parties are kept specifically open on merits. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/09/2026 18:56:54