SOM KISKU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Raigunj, Uttar Dinajpur in Sessions Case No. 30/2014 whereby prayer for recall of the victim for cross-examination was turned down by the Trial Court.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case portrays a sordid state of affairs in the matter of conducting trial in sensitive cases of sexual offences. The legislative intention of concluding trial within sixty days which was incorporated by 2013 amendment to the Code is being rendered a dead letter of law by the subterfuge adopted under the guise of a belated plea for cross-examination of the victim.

(3.) In the instant case the victim of sexual assault appeared before the Trial Court on 24.11.2014 for adducing her evidence. The accused person conveniently absented himself and in order to avoid harassment to inconvenience to the said victim the Trial Court directed the learned counsel to represent the accused under Section 317 Criminal Procedure Code and proceeded to record her evidence in chief. The learned counsel, however, refused to participate in the trial proceeding and cross-examine the witness and accordingly, the Trial Court was constrained to close her evidence. Such order remained unassailed and the petitioner accused absconded. Consequentially, warrant of arrest was issued against him. After lapse of one and half years the petitioner again appeared before the Court below & was committed to custody. Thereafter, the petitioner prayed for recall of the said witness and sought her cross-examination. Learned Trial Court declined such prayer. Hence the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the right to cross-examination of the victim is most vital for his defence and, therefore another opportunity ought to be extended to him. His client ought not suffer due to the indolence of his lawyer and in support of such contention he relied on P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of A.P. (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1. He also submitted that he is willing to pay costs and expenses for attendance of the witness for further crossexamination.