The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4207 of 2025 Sanatan Pradhan @ Panda ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Partha Sarathi Das Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Ms. B.K.Sahu, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 16.10.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the accused-petitioner to invoke inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Sections 528 B.N.S.S. to quash order dated 05.09.2025 passed in S.T. Case No.20 of 2020 by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodala. By virtue of
Legal Reasoning
impugned order dated 05.09.2025, the learned trial court has rejected the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W-12, and eye-witness to the occurrence, for his further cross-examination. Page 1 of 6. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the present case arises out of an F.I.R. which has been registered for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 341, 302, 326, 307, 34 I.P.C. and the same was registered as Polasara P.S. Case No.69 of 2011. He further submitted that after completion of the investigation the I.O. has filed a charge sheet. Accordingly, the petitioner is facing trial as an accused. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although trial is progressing at the moment, only 14 number of prosecution witnesses have been examined. He further contended that P.W-12, namely one Manoj Swain, who happens to be the injured and eye-witness to the occurrence was examined initially during October, 2024. However, certain relevant questions were not asked the P.W-12 and the same is likely to cause prejudiced to the Petitioner. He further contended that taking into consideration, the nature of gravity and allegation, and the punishment that is likely to be imposed, the application of the Petitioner under section 311 of Cr.P.C should have been allowed. 5. In course of his argument learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the provision contained in Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. contended that the statute confers wide discretionary powers on the trial court to summon any material witness for his examination/re- examine at any stage of proceeding inquiry/trial. In the event the Court is of the view that such re-examination is essential to the just decision of the case. He further submitted that the P.W-12 being an eye-witness to the occurrence is a material witness, his cross- examined is of vital importance. However, due to latches on the part of the conducting counsel certain relevant questions were not put to the PW-12. As a result, the accused-Petitioner is likely to be Page 2 of 6. seriously prejudiced. Especially, keeping in view the severity of the punishment that would be inflicted on the Petitioner in the event he is found guilty of the offence. 6. With regard to the impugned order dated 05.09.2025, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that although the learned trial has passed a detailed order and in such order he has also quoted the questionnaire that was filed along with an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., however, the learned trial court has not considered the relevancy of the questions that has been formulated to be confronted to the P.W-12 on his record. The entire order dated 05.09.2025 has proceeded on a general principle of this Court and the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and in the said context, the learned trial court has referred to several judgments. Towards the concluding part of the order the learned trial court has expressed his views that the language used in the questionnaire is ornamental and that such questions will not have any impact on the outcome of the trial. Moreover, it has also been observed that failure to ask relevant questions or failure to bring out certain facts on the mouth of the witness cannot be the grounds to exercise the power to recall a witness under Section 311of Cr.P.C. While assailing the aforesaid order of the learned trial court, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned trial court has proceeded on an erroneous footing without specifically examining the questions that have been formulated and which are likely to be asked to the P.W-12, an eye- witness, on his recall. As such, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned rejection order is illegal and erroneous and the same is unsustainable in law. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the Page 3 of 6. prayer made in the present application. In course of her argument, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner made under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall P.W-12 for his further cross- examination. She further contended that by virtue of the impugned order dated 05.09.2025, the learned trial court has passed a detailed order refusing the prayer of the Petitioner to recall P.W-12. She further contended that the petitioner has failed to make out a case which would enable the learned trial court to exercise its discretionary powers conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall witnessed for further cross-examination. It was also contended that such discretionary power cannot be exercised merely on filling of a petition at the instance of the Accused-Petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the State contended that the prayer made in the present application is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the application is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of the backgrounds facts, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 05.09.2025 at Anenxure- 3, this Court observes that the accused-Petitioner, who is facing a trial for commission of a crime under Section 302 of I.P.C. has approached this Court against order dated 05.09.2025, challenging rejection of his prayer to recall P.W-12, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, for his further cross-examination. On a careful analysis of the entire facts, this Court found that the Petitioner is facing a grave charge, i.e. the commission of the crime of murder. Therefore, in the event he is found guilty, the Petitioner would be liable to face capital punishment. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of Page 4 of 6. the prima facie view that the learned trial court should have considered the application by taking a lenient view. Moreover, P.W- 12, who happens to be an eye-witness to the occurrence, his evidence is crucial at the ultimate stage of the trial for arriving at the finding with regard to the involvement of the Petitioner, as well as while imposing the sentence. The only question that should have been considered by the learned trial court was with regard to the relevancy of the questions included in the questionnaire and as to whether the same is required for a just decision of the case. In the factual backdrop of the present case, this Court is of the view that considering the magnitude of the offence and the sentence likely to be imposed, further keeping in view the fact that the P.W-12 is an eye-witness and that the evidence from the prosecution side is not over, the learned trial court should have permitted the defence to recall the P.W-12 for his further cross-examination. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the view taken by the learned trial court in rejecting the application of the Petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is unsustainable in law and hence order dated 05.09.2025 is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to summon P.W-12 and ensure that the P.W-12 is cross- examined on a particular date and he has discharged on very same day. It is further directed that no further adjournment shall be granted to the Accused-Petitioner for such cross-examination. In the event the Petitioner fails to further cross-examine P.W-12 on the particular date to be fixed, then he shall not be granted any further opportunity. It is further made clear that since the aforesaid opportunity to cross- examine P.W-12 is a result of latches on the part of the Petitioner, further cross-examination of P.W-12 shall be allowed subject to the Petitioner paying a cost of Rs.2000/- to the P.W-12. Lastly, this Page 5 of 6. Court further observes that since the case of the year 2004, the learned trial court shall make every endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC
Decision
stands disposed of. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Oct-2025 18:03:30