MANISH SONKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 26/11/2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Fast Track Court, Special Judge (POCSO Act), Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) passed in SCC POCSO/11/2018 whereby the learned appellate court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 311 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 for recalling of prosecutrix and her parents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial under Ss. 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Sec. 5(1)/66 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. During trial, statements of mother and father of the prosecutrix were recorded on 5/1/2019 and 3/8/2019 as PW-2 and PW-4 respectively and the prosecutrix was examined on 27/11/2018 as PW-1. Now, prosecutrix had attained the age of majority and she again approached the petitioner for having a love affair with him and informed him that she had given the statements under undue pressure of family members. On the basis of aforesaid assurance of the prosecutrix, petitioner filed an application under Sec. 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for re-examination of the prosecutrix and her parents and specific reasons were assigned in the application filed as Annexure P/5 but learned trial Court vide its order dtd. 26/11/2021 has rejected the application without appreciating the fact that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under duress and prosecutrix turned major only in the year 2021 (as per the prosecution). Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and same deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that the parents of the prosecutrix have falsely implicated the petitioner in the aforesaid offence as there was love affair between prosecutrix and the petitioner. In the present case, the factual aspect that whether the initial statements were given under duress or not, it is necessary that they may be re-examined, therefore, the application may be allowed. In support of his argument, reliance has been placed in the matters of Jagat Ravi v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1968 SC 178, Rama Paswan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2007) 11 SCC 191 and Iddar and Ors. v. Aabida and Anr. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 211.