IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.770 of 2026 Jagannath Naik …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Devashis Panda, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 13.03.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been instituted by the Petitioner seeking to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.S.C.), Dhenkanal in C.T. (Spl.) (P) Case No.52 of 2024, whereby the petition filed by the present Petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.13, the Doctor who had examined the victim, for the purpose of further cross-examination, has been rejected. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner, in essence, is that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the true scope and object of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., which vests the Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Mar-2026 18:14:27 Signature Not Verified Court with wide discretionary powers to summon or recall any witness at any stage of the trial if such evidence appears to be essential for arriving at a just decision of the case. It is contended that the testimony of P.W.13 being of a medical expert constitutes a crucial piece of evidence in the adjudication of the allegations involved in the case, and therefore denial of an opportunity to further cross-examine the said witness would cause serious prejudice to the defense of the Petitioner and impair the fairness of the trial. 4. The Petitioner, therefore, contends that the impugned order rejecting the prayer under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. suffers from non-application of judicial mind and is liable to be interfered with in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is facing trial for the alleged offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the determination of the age of the victim assumes pivotal significance for the adjudication of the case. It is contended that although the victim has already been examined and P.W.11, the grand-mother of the victim, has deposed with regard to the age of the victim, the testimony of P.W.13, the Doctor who had medically examined the victim, assumes critical evidentiary importance in determining whether the victim was in fact a minor at the relevant time. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the defense was deprived of an effective opportunity to cross-examine P.W.13 on the crucial aspect of age determination. According to him, the Doctor appears to have indicated the age of the victim with certainty despite the admitted position that no scientific examination such as radiological or ossification test had been conducted and no documentary proof of age was shown to the witness at the time of examination. In such circumstances, the further cross-examination of P.W.13 becomes indispensable for testing the veracity, basis and reliability of the medical opinion regarding the age of the victim. 7. It is therefore contended that the rejection of the Petitioner's application filed under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking recall of P.W.13 has caused serious prejudice to the defence. Learned counsel submits that the defence plea that the victim was a major can only be effectively established if the Doctor is confronted during cross-examination on the methodology adopted for age assessment and the absence of any scientific test or documentary basis for such determination. According to the Petitioner, the denial of such an opportunity has resulted in grave prejudice to the accused and the impugned order reflects a failure to appreciate that the recall of the witness was necessary for arriving at a just and fair decision of the case.Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the impugned order suffers from the vice of gross non application of judicial mind to the materials on record and warrants interference u/s. 528 B.N.S.S., 2023. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the sole reason assigned by the learned trial Court while declining the prayer for recalling and further cross- examining the medical officer is neither legally sustainable nor supported by any cogent reasoning. According to him, the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the prosecution evidence had not yet been closed and the trial was still in progress with the examination of other charge- sheeted witnesses continuing. In such circumstances, the rejection of the application for recall of a material witness at that stage of the trial is wholly unwarranted and contrary to the settled principles governing criminal procedure, particularly when no irreparable prejudice would have caused to the prosecution by permitting such recall. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the law relating to the exercise of powers under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is well settled. The provision confers wide discretionary powers upon the trial Court to summon, recall or re-examine any witness at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding if the evidence of such witness appears to be essential for arriving at a just decision of the case. 10. It is further contended that in the present case the further cross-examination of P.W.13, the Doctor who examined the victim, is indispensable for testing the correctness and reliability of the medical opinion regarding the age of the victim. Since the determination of the victim’s age is a crucial factor in a prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, denial of an opportunity to effectively cross-examine the medical witness results in serious prejudice to the defence. Learned counsel therefore submits that the learned trial Court has acted illegally and arbitrarily in rejecting the prayer for recall of the said witness, particularly when the Petitioner is facing charges carrying severe penal consequences including imprisonment for life. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the mere fact that certain earlier applications had been filed by the Petitioner seeking recall of the victim and that such applications were rejected cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for rejecting the present application filed under Section 348 of the said Sanhita. It is submitted that the principle of res judicata has no application in criminal trials, especially in matters concerning procedural opportunities necessary for ensuring a fair trial. Criminal jurisprudence mandates that an accused must be afforded adequate opportunity to establish his defence, more so when he is facing serious criminal charges. According to the Petitioner, the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous premise and denies him a legitimate opportunity to effectively defend himself, thereby resulting in manifest prejudice and failure of justice. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and contends that the contentions raised in the present petition are wholly misconceived. It is submitted that in the F.I.R. itself the victim has clearly disclosed her age and the same finds due corroboration from the school admission register seized during the course of investigation. According to the State, the said document constitutes a reliable piece of evidence with regard to the determination of the victim’s age and there exists no ambiguity or discrepancy warranting any interference by this Court at this stage. Learned counsel further submits that the present petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the sole intent to protract the proceedings and delay the trial, despite the materials collected during investigation clearly disclosing the commission of the alleged offences. It is therefore contended that the petition, being devoid of any merit and not disclosing any ground for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, deserves to be dismissed in limine. 13. The scope and ambit of the power to recall or re- examine a witness has been authoritatively explained by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India1, wherein it was held that the object of the provision is to enable the Court to arrive at the truth and render a just decision and that the Court may exercise such power at any stage if the evidence of a witness appears essential to the just decision of the case. The Court further held that the provision confers very wide and plenary powers upon the Court, which are to be exercised with great caution and circumspection. Nevertheless, such powers are intended to be invoked whenever the ends of justice so demand or where intervention becomes necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 14. The inherent jurisdiction is thus designed to ensure that the administration of justice is not thwarted by technicalities and that the judicial process is not permitted to be misused for ulterior purposes. In the context of determination of age in cases involving allegations under the POCSO Act, the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. 1 AIR 1991 SC 1346 State of Haryana2 held that age determination must ordinarily be based on reliable documentary evidence such as school records or birth certificates and in their absence medical opinion may be considered. Therefore, where the determination of age has been made without scientific tests or supporting documentary proof, effective cross- examination of the medical officer assumes considerable significance for a just adjudication of the case. 15. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the opportunity to cross-examine P.W.13 assumes considerable significance in the present case, particularly when the determination of the victim’s age constitutes a determinative fact for the applicability of the provisions of the POCSO Act. The right of the accused to effectively cross-examine a material witness is an integral facet of a fair trial and forms part of the principles of natural justice. Any curtailment of such right, especially in respect of a witness whose testimony bears directly upon a crucial issue such as the age of the victim, would seriously prejudice the defence. Denial of such opportunity would not only impair the ability of the accused to challenge the prosecution’s case but may also occasion a failure of justice. 16. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of 2 AIR 2013 Supreme Court the considered view that the ends of justice would be served by granting limited liberty to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a separate application before the learned trial Court seeking recall of P.W.13, the Doctor, specifically indicating therein the questions proposed to be put to the said witness. 17. In the event such an application is filed, the learned Ad- hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC), Dhenkanal shall consider the same in accordance with law and may allow the application subject to the condition that the cross- examination shall remain strictly confined to the questionnaire set out in the said application and shall not travel beyond the scope thereof. 18. The Petitioner is granted liberty to file such an application within fifteen (15) days from today. Upon such application being filed, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC), Dhenkanal shall consider the same expeditiously and ensure that the cross-examination of P.W.13 is conducted at the earliest possible opportunity. 19. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun