The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that courts must not permit repeated examination of child victims in POCSO cases merely due to belated claims of new evidence, emphasizing statutory protections and the need to prevent re-traumatization. This ruling reinforces the balance between fair trial rights and the welfare of minor witnesses.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Narayan Das @ Aryan Pant, is accused of committing rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. A chargesheet was filed in Special Sessions Trial No. 30/2024 before the Special Court at Jagdalpur. The victim, designated as PW-1, was examined as a prosecution witness on 18.10.2024. The defence counsel conducted a full cross-examination at that stage. The trial is now at the stage of defence evidence.
Key Facts
- The victim was examined on 18.10.2024 and cross-examined at length by the defence.
- The applicant was in judicial custody until his release in mid-2025.
- On 29.09.2025, the victim allegedly engaged in an Instagram chat with the applicant, during which she purportedly admitted that her complaint was filed under pressure from her father and for monetary gain.
- The applicant filed an application under Section 348 of BNSS, 2023 on 07.02.2026, seeking re-cross-examination of the victim based on this alleged chat.
- The application was rejected by the trial court on 12.02.2026 on grounds of delay, lack of necessity, and potential prejudice to the victim.
- The applicant filed the present petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the rejection.
Procedural History
- 18.10.2024: Victim (PW-1) examined and cross-examined by defence.
- 29.09.2025: Alleged Instagram chat between victim and applicant.
- 07.02.2026: Application under Section 348 of BNSS filed for re-cross-examination.
- 12.02.2026: Trial Court rejects application.
- 24.03.2026: High Court hears petition and dismisses it at motion stage.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the trial court’s order dated 12.02.2026 and a direction to permit re-cross-examination of the victim (PW-1) based on the alleged Instagram chat.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 348 of BNSS, 2023 permits re-cross-examination of a POCSO victim after she has been fully examined and cross-examined, particularly when the alleged new evidence emerges months later and the trial is nearing conclusion.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the Instagram chat constituted new evidence that could materially affect the credibility of the victim’s testimony. He contended that Section 348 of BNSS grants courts discretionary power to re-examine any witness at any stage if their evidence is essential to a just decision. He relied on the principle of fair trial and asserted that denying re-cross-examination would violate the applicant’s right to defend himself under Article 21 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent/State
The State counsel countered that the victim had already undergone exhaustive cross-examination, and the application was filed after a delay of over four months following the alleged chat. He emphasized that Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act prohibits repeated summoning of child victims to avoid trauma. He argued that allowing such applications on belated, unverified claims would encourage tactical delays and undermine the legislative intent of expeditious and sensitive handling of POCSO cases.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 348 of BNSS, 2023, which permits re-examination of a witness if their evidence appears essential to a just decision. However, it held that this power must be exercised with restraint, particularly in POCSO cases.
"When the victim has been examined and then cross-examined at length twice already, mechanically allowing an application for recall of the victim, especially in trial of offences under the POCSO Act would defeat the very purpose of the statute."
The Court relied on Madhab Chandra Pradhan & Ors. v. State of Odisha (2024), where the Supreme Court explicitly warned against routine recall of victims in POCSO trials. It further cited State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav (2016), holding that courts cannot permit recall merely due to alleged deficiencies in cross-examination by counsel, especially when such claims arise after a significant lapse of time.
The Court noted that the applicant had ample opportunity to cross-examine the victim on 18.10.2024 and did not raise any issue of inadequacy at that stage. The Instagram chat, even if authentic, emerged nearly 11 months after the victim’s testimony and four and a half months after the alleged communication. The trial was already at the final stage of defence evidence, making recall disruptive and unnecessary.
The Court also underscored that Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act imposes a statutory duty on Special Courts to prevent repeated appearances by child victims. Permitting re-cross-examination under these circumstances would directly contravene this provision.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed at the motion stage. The Court upheld the trial court’s order dated 12.02.2026 rejecting the application for re-cross-examination. No re-examination of the victim (PW-1) shall be permitted. The trial shall proceed without recalling the victim. The applicant’s right to a fair trial was not infringed, as he had already been afforded full opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Re-cross-examination Is Not a Right, But a Discretionary Remedy
- Practitioners must demonstrate that new evidence is both credible and material, not merely speculative or belated.
- Applications under Section 348 BNSS filed after prolonged delays, especially in POCSO cases, face high judicial scrutiny.
- Courts will not permit recall merely because a new defence theory emerges post-trial commencement.
POCSO Victims Are Protected from Re-traumatization by Statute
- Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act is not a mere guideline - it is a mandatory procedural shield.
- Defence counsel cannot use the prospect of new evidence to justify repeated summoning of child witnesses.
- Any application for recall must be filed promptly and supported by verifiable, contemporaneous documentation.
Delay Undermines Fair Trial and Justice
- Delay in filing applications for re-examination may be construed as tactical, not substantive.
- Courts will weigh the prejudice to the victim against the speculative benefit to the accused.
- In POCSO trials, the balance tilts decisively toward protecting the minor witness, even if it limits the accused’s procedural options.
