PARVEZ Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 528 of B.N.S.S. is filed by the petitioner/accused to quash the order dtd. 12/8/2024, whereby the application un-der Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/accused to recross-examine the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 prosecutrix/victim and PW2 father of the prosecutrix/complainant on additional facts and questions, was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge/F.T.C./Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused was charge-sheeted under Ss. 363, 366, 376(2) of IPC and Ss. 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short 'POCSO Act); that, after framing of charges, the petitioner/accused is facing trial for the offence punishable under Ss. 363, 366, 376(2) of IPC and Ss. 5/6 of the POCSO Act; that, the prosecutrix/victim and her father/complainant were examined in the trial court as PW1 and PW2 respectively; that, an application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. was moved (annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the petition) for recalling the PW1 and PW2 i.e. prosecutrix/victim and her father/complainant respectively on the ground that a number of questions were necessary to be asked to the prosecutrix/victim and her father. However, that application was dis-missed vide order dtd. 12/8/2024 Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that during the cross-examination of the father of the prosecutrix/victim as PW2, it came to the knowledge that the prosecutrix/victim i.e. PW1 is adopted daughter of PW2 and to create the doubt about the age of the prosecutrix/victim, these questions are necessary.