SONIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been directed against the order dated 07.09.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby the application filed by the prosecutrix for her re-examination after alternation in charge, has been dismissed by the trial Court.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that on 5.03.2013, charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, 'POCSO Act') was framed against accused Krishan and his co-accused Karambir was charged for committing offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. After examination of the prosecutrix as a witness during trial, the learned trial Court altered the charge and as a result, Karambir was also charged for committing offence punishable under Sections 376 IPC and charge framed against Krishan for offence punishable under Section 9 of POCSO Act was altered to Section 4 of the said Act. It is argued with vehemence that keeping in view the mandate of the provisions of Section 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C.'), the trial Court is obligated to recall or re-summon and examine with reference to such alteration or addition any witness who may have been examined unless the Court for recorded reasons finds that the prosecution or the accused desires to recall or re-examine such witness for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. According to Counsel, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the prosecutrix with the observations that there is no necessity or relevance to re-examine the prosecutrix on the same point which is not in consonance with the spirit of Section 217 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent State of Haryana has nothing to submit to counter the submissions made by Counsel for the petitioner in view of the clear interpretation of Section 217 Cr.P.C.