CHEMA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).

(2.) The petitioner, by filing this revision, has called in question the legality and propriety of order dtd. 7/7/2022 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC), Balasore in Special Case No.323 of 2018.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that when the victim was examined as P.W.1 on 8/11/2021, learned counsel for the Petitioner (accused) being not ready could not cross-examine and, therefore, when afterwards prayer was made for recall of P.W.1 for cross-examination, the same has been rejected citing the ground that the victim cannot be left at the mercy and sweet will of the accused for being cross-examined when the provision contained in Sec. 33(5) of the POCSO Act cautions that there be no repetition for a child witness in testifying before the court. He further submits that the victim is aged around 17 years and there being no cross-examination at all from the side of the defence so as to ascertain the veracity of her testimony when she has stated that this Petitioner (accused) having not disclosed certain material facts concerning himself had established the sexual relationship with the victim. In view of the above, he contends that unless the prayer of this Petitioner for cross-examination of P.W.1 is allowed, prejudice would be writ large and practically the evidence of P.W.1 would remain untested which would amount to denial of fair trial.