Xyz Complainant Informant Victim Crime No 44/2023 Thru. Her Father v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Others

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7029 of 2024 Applicant :- Xyz Complainant Informant Victim Crime No 44/2023 Thru. Her Father Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi,Sagun Chandra Rastogi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶1Heard Shri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant assisted by Shri Sagun Chandra Rastogi, Advocate as well as learned A.G.A. for the state and perused the records.

¶2The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief:- "to quash the impugned order dated 05.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Hardoi and further be pleased to direct the

learned

trial

Court

to

summon

the victim/complainant/informant/petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for her further examination on the questions which have been detailed in the application moved before the learned Trial Court has also submitted before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."

¶3By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the victim/applicant has approached this Court challenging the order dated

05.07.2024, passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hardoi (in short 'trial court'), in Special Session Trial No. 425 of 2023 (State Vs. Rakesh Gupta) on an application preferred by the victim/applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. praying therein to recall the P.W.1.

¶4Brief facts of the case are to effect that an FIR No. 0044 of 2023 was lodged on 28.01.2023 under Sections 354, 506 IPC, Section 3(2)

(va) SC/ST Act and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station - Atrauli, District - Hardoi. Thereafter, based upon the statement(s) including the statement made by the victim during the investigation as also the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 354, 506, 376 IPC, Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Sections 7/6/8/5j(ii) POCSO Act.

¶5The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions where the case was registered as Special Session Trial No. 425 of 2023 (State Vs. Rakesh Gupta).

¶6The trial Court therein framed the charges against the accused and upon denial, the opposite party no. 2/accused put to trial. The victim (PW-1) was duly examined on 31.07.2023, thereafter was cross-examined on 17.08.2023, as appears from the record. After conclusion of cross-examination of the victim, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of the victim for further examination was preferred by the father of the victim on 17.08.2023.

¶7The trial Court, upon due consideration of the facts of the case vide order dated 05.01.2024, rejected the application for recall of victim for further examination. The order dated 05.01.2024 is extracted herein-under: "

पततवललपतररनतपतअनतररतधतरत311

दद०प०सद०परआददशहदततपदशहहयल।

पतररनतपतअनतररतधतरत311

दद०प०सद०छबललद(

जजपलडडतत/

वतडदनलकतडपततहह)

दतरतअडभयजजनसदअगसतररतकरतकरइसआशयकतपसतत डकयतरयतहहडक

पलडततकजमतखयपरलकतडदनतदक31.07.2023

कजहहईरल,

जजसममउसनदअडभयतक

रतकदशदतरतबलततकतरडकयदजतनदवघरममयडदबततयततजजतनसदमतरडतलनदजतनद

कतकरनडकयतरत।पलडडततनदअपनलमतखयपरलकतमममजजसटटदटमहजदयकदसमक

अपनतबयतनददनतभलबततयतरत,

जजसममभलरतकदशदतरतरलतकतमडकयतजतनत

बततयतरततरतपदटममरतकदशकतबचचतहजनतबततयतरत।

पलडडततककपडतपरलकत

डदनतदक

17.08.2023

कजबचतवपककदअजधवकतमहजदयदतरतककरई

, जजसमम

पलडडततदतरतकहतरयतडकरतकदशसदबततचलतहहईरल।रतकदशनदमदरदसतरकजई

बलततकतरनहहडकयत।पलडडततनदपडतपरलकतममयहभलकहतडकसतनललरदजजशकद

कतरणरतकदशकजफदसतनतचतहतदरदऔरमतझदरतनदपरलदजतकरररपजटरजलखवतई।

ररपजटरपढकरनहहसतनतईरई।नयतयडहतममपलडडततदतरतमतखयपरलकतममडकयदरयद

करनकदडवपरलतपडतपरलकतडकयदरयदकरनममउतपनडवरजधतभतषकजसपषकरनद

कदजलएअडभयजजनपकदतरतपलडडततककपतननपरलकतडकयतजतनतआवशयकव

नयतयजडचतहह।

उकपतररनतपतकदडवरददतजखलआपजतममअडभयतकककओरसदकहतरयतडक

पतररनतअनतररतधतरत311

दद०प०सद०डबलकतलहलआधतरहलनएवदडवजधएवदतथयय

कदपडतककलहह।पलडडततकतबयतनडदनतदक17.08.2023

कजवडदनतदक17.09.2023

कजहजचकतहह।पलडडततदतरतअपनलपडतपरलकतमममतखयपरलकतकतसमररननहह

डकयतहहअडभयजजनपकदतरतपलडडततकतपरलकणमतखयपरलकतममकरतयतजतचतकत

हह।इसकतरणसदडकसलपकतरकदपलडडततकदबयतनकदपरलकणककआवशयकततनहह

हह।पलडडततकदबयतन...

लजकअडभयजजककदसमकनयतयतलयममअदडकतडकयदरयदहह। पमवड़ताoपरoदबावoबनाकरoपरमकाoमेoमनमानoव तरमकव oसवoबयानoअनवकतoकटाoसकव जबवकoपमवड़ताoसवयनoवावदनमoहoह छबमलवoपमवड़ताoकाoवपताoहहoअभमoधथमलवoककoगवाहम र रहकनाoशवषoहoह वहoअपनमoगवाहमoदवनवoकव oिलएoसवतनतoह।ह oअततoपाथनापतoअनतगतoधारा 311oद०न प०सन०oवनरसतoवकयवoजानवoयकगयoह।ह मसुनाoजाoचुकाoह।ह oमoपतावलमoकाoअवलककनoवकया। पतावलमoकव oअवलककनoसवoसपषoहहoवकoमामलवoमेoपमवड़ता/वावदनमoककoमुखयoपरमका वदनानक o31.07.2023 oककo अनवकतoककo गयम।oततपशचातकo वदनानक o17.08.2023 oकक उसककoपवतoपरमकाoअनवकतoककoगयमoतथाoपतावलमoमेoवदनानकo02.09.2023oककoवतिथ वनयतoककoगयम।oउसमoवदनoनoतकoककईoसाकयoपसतुतoहहआoनoहमoककईoपाथरनापतoवदया गयाoऔरoपतावलमoमेoवदनानकo18.09.2023oककoवतिथoवनयतoककoगयम।oउसoवदनoभम पतावलमoमेoनoतकoककईoसाकमoउपिसथतoआयाoनoहमoककईoपाथरनापतoहमoपसतुतoवकया गयाo औरoपतावलमo मेo वदनानकoवतिथo वनयतoककo गयम।oिजसoवदनoछबमलवo दारा अवभयकजनoसवoअगसाररतoकराकरoवतरमानoपाथरनापतoपसतुतoवकयाoगया।oकहनवoका तातपयरoयहoवकoिजसoवदनoिजरहoपणल रoहहईoउसoवदनoतकoछबमलव/अवभयकजनoककoककई कममoनजरoनहळoआयम।oइसमoपकारoवतिथo02.09.2023oककoभमoछबमलव/अवभयकजन ककoककईoकममoनजरoनहळoआतमoहहoवफरoउसककoअगलमoवतिथoवदनानकo04.10.2023 ेककoछबमलव/अवभयकजनoककoयहoपताoचलताoहoह वकoपमवड़ताoनवoअपनमoिजरहoमoयह ेजवाबoवदयाoहह,oिजसoकारणoमामलवoमoयहoकममoउतपनoहकoगयम।oधयानoदवनवoयकगयoतथय यहoहoह वकoवतरमानoमoे अवभयकजनoककoओरoसवoववशवषoलककoअवभयकजकoपाकसकoकव oसहयकगoकव oिलएoपाइववटoअिधवकाoभमoहooह,ooउसकव oबादoभमoउनकव oदाराoिजरहoवालवoवदनo नयायालयoसवoवनववदनoनहळoवकयाoगयाoनoहमoववशवषoलककoअवभयकजनoपाकसकoदारा oऐसाoवनववदनoवकयाoगयाoवकoमामलवoमेoउनहoे अमुकoपशनoपलछनाoहoहo,ooवकनतुoउसoसाकमoसoव दकनकoमेoसवoवकसमoकव oदाराoभमoऐसाoवनववदनoनहळoवकयाoगयाoऔरoजबoदकoवतिथयानoबमत oगयमoतबoछबमलवoदाराoसकचoसमझकरoo(oआफटरथाटoo)ooवतरमानoपाथरनापतoपसतुतoकरo oवदयाoगयाoo,ooजकoवनरसतoहकनवoयकगयoह।हo oइसकव oअवतररकoवतरमानoपाथरनापतoअनतगरतoधाराoo311ooद०न पसन०oपसतुतoवकयाoगयाo oहoह औरoo311ooद०न प०सन०oमoे उनoवववशषoपशनोoकाoउलवखoवकयाoजानाoआवशयकoहoहo,ooजकo oपशनoतलबoवकयवo जानवo वालवo गवाहoसवo पलछाo जानाo हकoo, ooवकनतुo पसतुतoमामलवo मoे oपाथरनापतoअनतगरतoधाराoo311ooदव०प०सन०oमेoऐसवoवकसमoपशनoकाoउलवखoनहळoवकयाo े रoगयाoहoo,ह ooइसकव oअभावoमoपाथनापतoसवमकारoहकनवoकाoककईoपशनoहमoनहळoउठता।o oइसकव oअवतररकoधाराoo311ooदव०प०सन०oएकoवववशषoपावधानoहहoऔरoवववशषoपावधानोo काoपयकगoनoतकoसरसरमoतझरoपरoवकयाoजायवगाoऔरoनoहमoवकसमoकममoककoपलराoकरनव oकव oिलएoवकयाoजायवगाoऔरoपसतुतoमामलवoमेoिजसoपकारoसवoपाथरनाoपतoवदयाoहoहo,ooवहo oकममoककoपलराoकरनवoकव oिलएoवदयाoगयाoहoहo,ooिजसककoअनुमवतoवकसमoककoनहळoदमoजाo सकतमo। oइसकव oअवतररकoपसतुतoमामलवoमेoपाथरनापतoछबमलवoदाराoवदयाoगयाoo,ooजकoनoतकoवादमoहoह oऔरoनoपमवड़ताoऔरoनoहमoिलसटoगवाहानoमoे उसकाoनामoहoहo,ooऐसमoिसथवतoमेoमातo oपमवड़ताo काo वपताo काo वपताo हकनवo कव o नातवo उनहoे पाथरनापतo अनतगरतoधाराooo311o oद०न प०सन०oपसतुतoकरनवoकाoअिधकारoनहळoहoहo,ooकयोवकoउनहकनवoतकoघटनाoअपनमo आटखकoसवoदवखमoनहळ। अततo उपरककo समपलणरo ववववचनाo सवo सपषo हoह वकo छबमलवo दाराo पसतुतoपाथरनापत मआफटरथाटoह,oइसमेoउनoपशनोoकाoउलवखoनहळoहह,oजकoपलछवoजानवoहह,oयहoिजरहoमे ेआयमoकममoककoपलराoकरनवoकव oिलएoवदयाoगयाoहह,oजकoहरoहालoमoवनरसतoवकयवoजानव यकगयoह।ह आदवश उपरककoपाथरनापतoअनतगरतoधाराo311oद०न प०सन०oवनरसतoवकयाoजाताoह।ह oपतावलम वासतवoसाकयoवदनानकo20.01.2024oककoपवशoहक।oगवाहoतलबoहक।" .o

¶8After passing the order dated 05.01.2024, quoted above, an application dated 29.02.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution with a prayer to permit the victim to appear as witness again for further examination/clarification on the following questions: "1.

यहडकजबपलडडततनदमतखयपरलकतममअडभयतकरतकदशदतरतरलतकतम (बलततकतर)

डकयतजतनतबततयततजपडतमतखयपरलकतकदलरभर17

डदनबतदककरई

पडतपरलकतममअडभयतकदतरतकजईरलतकतमनडकयदजतनदकतकरनडकयतहहइस

डवरजधतभतषकतसपषलकरणपतपकरनदकदसमबनधमम

2.

यहडकजबमतखयपरलकतममपलडडततनदकरनडकयतडकपलछदसदमतझदपकडकर

खहचकरअरहरकदखदतममलदरयदजबडकमतखयपरलकतकद17

डदनबतदपडतपरलकतमम

दरनडकयतडकममनदमतसलजमरतकदशकजबतलतयतरत,

ममडमलनतचतहतलरल।घटनत

सरलवतलदखदतमममदरलरतकदशककबततचलतहहईरल।रतकदशनदमदरदसतरकईरलत

कतमनहहडकयत।इसडवरजधतभतषकतसपषलकरणपतपकरनदकदसमबनधमम

3.

यहडकसतनललरततमवसतनललमतयरकदकहनदपररतकदशकजफदसतनदकदजलएउनकद

सतररतनदजतकररतकदशकदडवरधदररपजटरकययजलखतईइसकदसपषलकरणकद

समबनधमम

4.

यहडकपलडडततनदपडतपरलकतममकरनडकयतमममतसलजमरतकदशकदसतररहनत

चतहतलहहआउससदशतदलकरनतचतहतलहहआ।कययडकममरभरवतलहहआअररमतसलजममतझदनहह

रखदरततजममउसदजररसजतकरतऊदरलकदसपषलकरणकदसमबनधमम

5.

यहडकपलडडततकजडवरजधतभतषसपषलकरणहदततपतननबतलतयदजतनदकतडदतलय

पतररनतपतहह।परमपतररनतपतइसआधतरपरडनरसतडकयतजतचतकतहहडकपतररनत

पतपलडडततकदडपततदतरतडदयतरयतहहजजनतजवतदलहहऔरनहलपतयकदशरतरत

उनपशनयकतउलदखनहहडकयतरयतहहजजपशनतलबडकयदजतनदवतलदरवतहसदपकछत

जतनतहह।" .

¶9The trial Court, vide order dated 05.07.2024, rejected the application dated 29.02.2024 preferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The order dated 05.07.2024 reads as under: "

पततवललपदशहहई।अडभयतकरतकदशरतपतककओरसदउसकदअजधवकतदतरतहतजजरल

मतफकपतररनतपतपसतत डकयतरयत,

जजसवलकतरडकयतरयत।अडभयजजनककओरसद

डवशदषलजकअडभयजजकउपससरत।पततयललवतसतदसतनवतई/

डनसततरणपतररनतपत

अनतररतधतरत311

दद०प०सद०डनयतहह।

अडभयजजनककओरसदपतररनतपतअनतररतधतरत311

दद०प०स०पलडडतत

पल०डबलक०1

कजपतननपरलकतकदजलएतलबकरतयदजतनदहदततपसतत डकयतरयत,

जजसकदडवरदबचतवपकककओरसदजलजखतआपजतपसतत ककरयल।

अडभयजजनककओरसदतकरपसतत डकयतरयतडकपलडडततनदअपनलमतखयपरलकतमम

अडभयतकरतकदशवकमलदशकददतरतउसदजबरनखदतममखहचकरलदजतनदतरतवहतद

अडभयतकरतकदशकददतरतउसकदसतरबलततकतरकरनदतरतअडभयतकरतकदशव

कमलदशकददतरतउसदजतनसदमतरनदककधमककददनदकतकरनडकयतहह, परनतत

बचतवपकदतरतककरयलपडतपरलकतममपलडडततनदयहकरनडकयतहहडकवहअडभयतक

रतकदशसदडमलनतचतहतलरलतरतउसनदअडभयतककजसवयबतलतयतरत।घटनतसरल

पररतकदशवउसककबततचलतहहईरल।अडभयतकनदउसकदसतरकजईरलतकतमयत

दतरयरवहतरनहहडकयतरत।यहरतकदशकदसतररहनतचतहतलहह,

उससदशतदलकरनत

चतहतलहह।पलडडततनदअपनलमतखयपरलकततरतपडतपरलकतममघटनतकदसदबदधमम

डवरजधतभतषलकरनडकयतहह,

जजसकदसपषलकरणकदजलएपलडडततककपतननपरलकत

करतयतजतनतआवशयकहह।

बचतवपककदडवदतनअजधवकतनदपतररनतपतकतडवरजधडकयततरतअडभयजजनकद

उकतकरकतखणडनकरतदहहएतकरपसतत डकयतडकअडभयजजनकददतरतयहडदतलय

पतररनतपतपसतत डकयतरयतहह।परमपतररनतपतडदनतदक05.01.2024 कज

नयतयतलयदतरतरतणदजषकदआधतरपरडनरसतडकयतजतचतकतहह।पलडडततनदअपनल

मतखयपरलकतममअडभयजजनपककतसनररनडकयतहह.

परनततबचतवपककददतरतककरई

पडतपरलकतममपलडडततनदजजकरनडकयतहह,

यहडवरजधतभतसलहह,

जजसकतलतभ

बचतवपककजडमलनतनयतयसदरतहह,

अडभयजजनउनहहडवरजधतभतसकजखसणडत

करनतचतहततहह,

यडदइसककअनतमडतदलजततलहह,

तजपडतपरलकतकतउददशयडवफल

हजजतयदरत।पलडडततनदअपनल

पडतपरलकतममकजईनयतकरननहहडकयतहह।घटनतकद

सदबदधममकदवलडवरजधतभतसलकरनडकयदहम,

जजपडतपरलकतकतउददशयभलहह।

अडभयजजननदपतररनतपतडवचतरणकजलसमबतरखनदतरतसतकयकककमलकजपकरत

करनदकदजलएपसतत डकयतहह,

जजसवलकतरडकयदजतनदयजगयनहहहह।

ममनदउभयपककजसतनततरतपततवललअवलजकनडकयत।

पततवललकदअवलजकनसदसपषहहडकडदनतदक31.07.2023

कजपलडडतत/पल०डबलक० 1•

ककमतखयपरलकतअदडकतकरतयलरयलरल,

जजसममपलडडततनदअडभयतकरतकदशकद

दतरतउसकदसतरखदतममबलततकतरकरनदतरतजतनसदमतरनदककधमककददनदकत

करनडकयतरयतहह।डदनतदक17.08.2023

कजबचतवपककददतरतककरयलपडतपरलकत

ममपलडडततनदकरनडकयतहहडकघटनतकदडदनउसनदअडभयतकरतकदशकजबतलवतयत

रततरतवहरतकदशसदडमलनतचतहतलरल,

रतकदशनदउसकदसतरकजईदतरयरवहतरयत

रलतकतमनहहडकयतरत,

वहरतकदशसदडववतहकरनततरतउसकदसतररहनत

चतहतलहह,

कययडकयहरभरवतलरल।मतखयपरलकततरतपडतपरलकतममघटनतकदसदबदध

ममडकयदरयदडवरजधतभतसलकरनयकदसपषलकरणकदजलएपलडडततकजपतननपरलकतकद

जलएतलबकरनदहदततअडभयजजनककओरसदयहपतररनतपतपसतत डकयतरयतहह।

अडभयजजनककओरसदपकवरममभलउकडवरजधतभतसयकदसपषलकरणकदजलएपलडडतत

कजपतननपरलकतहदतततलबकरनदकदजलएपतररनतपतपसतत डकयतरयतरत,

जजइस

नयतयतलयकदपकवरपलठतसलनअजधकतरलदतरतडदनतदक05.01.2024

कजरतणदजषकद

आधतरपरडनरसतडकयतजतचतकतहह,

अडभयजजनकददतरतपतननउसलआधतरपर

डदतलयपतररनतपतपसतत डकयतरयतहह,

जजपजषणलयनहजनदकदकतरणसवलकतरडकयद

जतदयजगयनहहहह। आददश

अडभयजजनककओरसदपसतत पतररनतपतअनतररतधतरत311

दद०प०सद०डनरसत

डकयतजतततहह।पततवललवतसतदशदषसतकयअडभयजजनडदनतदक23.07.2024

कजपदश हज।" .

¶10In the aforesaid background of the case, present application has been filed.

¶11Challenging the order dated 05.07.2024, learned counsel for the applicant says that as per settled principle of law the application ought to have been allowed by the trial Court and the order impugned is against the principle settled in this regard as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to expression 'Fair Trial'. As such, interference of this Court is required in the matter.

¶12Learned AGA opposed the present application which relates to recall of witness in exercise of power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C.. He stated that as per settled principle of law, for filling lacunas a witness cannot be recalled or permitted to be recalled. Prayer is to affirm the impugned order and dismiss the application.

¶13Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶14Considered the aforesaid facts and the observations made by the trial Court in the order dated 11.07.2024 and the principles related to recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Mohd. Khalid Versus State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334; Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 444; Mannan S.K. and Ors. V State of West Bengal and Anr., AIR 2014. SC 2950. State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar and others (2016) 8 SCC 762; Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328; Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 and as also by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022 (Ram Nayak Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another).

¶15It is well settled by catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with the care, caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. The recall of a witness already examined should not be a matter of course and discretion given to the court in this regard has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society.

¶16The Court is fully conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners/accused and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. At the same time, the Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. Recalling of witnesses has to be applied on the basis of judicially established and accepted principles.

¶17In the facts of the case it would be apt to refer the observations made in the judgment(s) passed in the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra) and Ram Mehar (Supra).

¶18In the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "Before parting with the case, we may point out that the Designated Court deferred the cross-examination of the witnesses for a long time. That is a feature which is being noticed in many cases. Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that the accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this allegation, the fact remains that such adjournments lack the spirit of Section 309 of the Code. When a witness is available and his examination-in-chief is over, unless compelling reasons arc there, the Trial Court should not adjourn the matter on the mere asking. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667 and N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant Shivde (2001) 6 SCC 135. In the case of State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667, this Court deprecated the practice of Courts adjourning cases without examination of witnesses when they are in attendance with the following observations:- "9. We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in Court he must be examined on that day. The Court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the Court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of bhatta (allowance) which a witness may be paid by the Court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a said plight in the Trial Courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at a doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be reformed by every one provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment towards duty. No sadistic pleasure, in seeing how other persons summoned by him as witnesses are standard on account of the dimension of his judicial powers, can be a persuading factor for granting such adjournments lavishly, that too in a casual manner."

¶19In the case of Ram Mehar (Supra). the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "23. In Bablu Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2015) 8 SCC 787 the Court referred to the authorities in Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC, Rattiram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516, J. Jayalalithaa and others v. State of Karnataka and others (2014) 2 SCC 401, State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715 and other decisions and came to hold that keeping in view the concept of fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution, the interest of the community and the duty of the court, it can irrefragably be stated that the court cannot be a silent spectator or a mute observer when it presides over a trial. It is the duty of the court to see that neither the prosecution nor the accused play truancy with the criminal trial or corrode the sanctity of the proceeding. They cannot expropriate or hijack the community interest by conducting themselves in such a manner as a consequence of which the trial becomes a farcical one. It has been further stated that the law does not countenance a "mock trial". It is a serious concern of society. Every member of the collective has an inherent interest in such a trial. No one can be allowed to create a dent in the same. The court is duty-bound to see that neither the prosecution nor the defence takes unnecessary adjournments and take the trial under their control. We may note with profit though the context was different, yet the message is writ large. The message is - all kinds of individual notions of fair trial have no room"." "38. At this juncture, we think it apt to state that the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be sought to be invoked either by the prosecution or by the accused persons or by the Court itself. The High Court has been moved by the ground that the accused persons are in the custody and the concept of speedy trial is not nullified and no prejudice is caused, and, therefore, the principle of magnanimity should apply. Suffice it to say, a criminal trial does not singularly centres around the accused. In it there is involvement of the prosecution, the victim and the victim represents the collective. The cry of the collective may not be uttered in decibels which is physically audible in the court premises, but the Court has to remain sensitive to such silent cries and the agonies, for the society seeks justice. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. We have already explained the use of the words "magnanimous approach" and how it should be understood. Regard being had to the concept of balance, and weighing the factual score on the scale of balance, we are of the convinced opinion that the High Court has fallen into absolute error in axing the order passed by the learned trial Judge. If we allow ourselves to say, when the concept of fair trial is limitlessly stretched, having no boundaries, the orders like the present one may fall in the arena of sanctuary of errors. Hence, we reiterate the necessity of doctrine of balance".

¶20As per the judgments, indicated above, including the judgment passed in the case of Mannan S.K. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Court should not permit the prosecution to fill up the lacuna in evidence.

¶21Upon due consideration of aforesaid facts as also the spirit of Section 33(5) of POCSO Act of 2012, according to which victim should not be called repeatedly to testify in court, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 05.07.2024. It is for the following reason(s):-

(i) It is a case related to POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 33(5) of the same indicates that the victim should not be called repeatedly to testify in the Court.

(ii) From a conjoint reading of the statement of the victim and the question indicated in para 7 of this judgment, it is apparent that in cross-examination the victim did not support the case as set up by the prosecution and accordingly, to the view of this Court, in view of this matter, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution with intention to fill up the lacuna after tutoring the victim, which is not permissible.

¶22For the aforesaid, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 9.8.2024/Mohit Singh/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench