VINOD RAWAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Ss. 482/402 Cr.P.C., 1973 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 4/8/2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) (FTSC) (POCSO) South, Saket, New Delhi wherein the learned ASJ was pleased to dismiss the application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses PW-1 Ms. "P" victim and PW-9 Ms. Sarojini Mukta Minj, Principal, SDMC, Nigam Pratibha Vidayalaya Chhatarpur Village 1, New Delhi in FIR bearing no. 831/2017 under Ss. 376/506 of IPC and Sec. 6 POCSO Act registered in Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi on 20/10/2017.

(2.) The learned counsel for petitioner states that his plea for re-examination of PW-1 and PW-9 was declined on totally erroneous ground. To contest his case he argues that since the petitioner was in jail, he was able to obtain certified copy of testimony of PW-1 and PW-9 on 22/9/2022. It is his case that the witnesses were not cross-examined by his counsel thereby, causing prejudice to him and that non-cross examination of these witnesses will affect the future outcome of the case.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the aim of every court is to discover the truth and in case his application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. is not allowed, grave injustice will be caused to the petitioner. He argues that there is dispute about the age of the victim and the case is not covered under the POCSO Act. It is therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside to reach just decision of the case. To buttress his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to two judgments titled as V.N. Patil v. K. Niranjan Kumar and Ors.(2021) 3 SCC 661 and Vijay Kumar v. State of UP and Anr. (2011) 8 SCC 136 which relate to the power of the court under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C.