Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010143932026 2026:GAU-AS:14502 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./355/2026 IBRAHIM ALI S/O LATE ALTAB ALI,R/O VILLAGE TELIACHAPORITUP, P.O. SAIDORIA, P.S. RUPAHIHAT, DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM 782125, PH. NO. 9401515339. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:AMADUL HOQUE S/O SURHAB ALI R/O VILLAGE TELIACHAPORITUP P.O. SAIDORIA P.S. RUPAHIHAT DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM 782125.PH. NO. 995428182 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MR M RAHMAN,MR H AGARWAL,MS S JAIN,MR P DOLEY,MR J SINGH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. I AMIN (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 29-09-2026 Heard Mr. BD Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Doley, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Page No.# 2/4 Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. I Amin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. By this application filed under Section 438 read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner prays for setting aside the order, dated 02.07.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Nagaon in Special (POCSO) Case No. 13(N)/2026 by which the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for re-calling of PW2, i.e., the Victim and PW3, i.e. the Medical Officer for their further cross-examination was rejected. 3. The case of the petitioner is that an application was filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Nagaon, Assam under Section 311 of the Cr.PC which is Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for further cross-examination of the Victim as well as the Medical Officer. It is stated in the application that there are various vital questions to be put to PW2 and PW3, which is required for the just decision of the case. 4. The learned Court, vide order, dated 02.07.2026, however had rejected the said application on the ground that PW2 and PW3 was cross-examined at length and was discharged. It was also held that the Court had also put questions to the medical officer and sought clarifications with regard to the injury and as such, it is stated that there is no necessity to recall the victim as well as the Doctor for further cross-examination. It is held by the said Court that under Section 311 of the Cr.PC wide discretionary powers are given to the Criminal Courts to summon, re-call or re-examine witnesses at any stage of the trial or other proceeding but if it is found that the same is meant for filling up the lacuna of the case, then it should not be allowed. The Court had also held that re-examination of the victim may result in harassment, which is barred under Page No.# 3/4 the POCSO Act and as such, on the said grounds the Court rejected the application. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the instant criminal revision, this Court had directed the petitioner to frame the questions that he needs to put to the victim as well as the Doctor to show their relevancy for further cross-examination and today when the matter is called up, the learned senior counsel had placed the questions that has been framed to be placed before the victim. 6. Under Section 311 of the Cr.PC or Section 348 of the BNSS, it is stated that for the ends of justice, the witnesses, who were already examined and cross- examined may be again re-called for further cross-examination. In the application filed before the Court, no questions were enumerated and from the order, dated 02.07.2026, it is also not discernible that the petitioner had specified the questions to be put to the victim or the Medical Officer and accordingly, the said Court could not allow the application. 7. Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the trial Court has seen the records of the case and had also correctly held that since PW2 and PW3 has already been cross-examined at length and was discharged, there was no necessity of re-calling the said witnesses. He also submits that the same would lead to filling up the lacuna at the instant stage. 8. Mr. I Amin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, however, did not object to the prayer made by the petitioner. 9. As such, it is directed that the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application before the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Nagaon, Assam wherein Page No.# 4/4 he should mention the relevant questions to be put to the victim as well as the Doctor and the Court may recall PW2 and PW3 for cross-examination by the petitioner or by the Court as per the procedure. However, the Court is also directed to see that no harassment is caused to the PW2 during the cross- examination. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay the cost to the PW2 for her conveyance to the Court as well as going back to the house. 10. With the above observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant