The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4837 of 2025 Bhojraj Padhan ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Devashis Panda Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Mr. C.M.Singh, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 19.11.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard Mr. D.Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. with a prayer to quash order dated 08.09.2025 passed in S.T. Case No.26 of 2022 which corresponds to Katarbaga P.S. Case No.165 of 2021 now pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. The abovenoted P.S. case was registered at the instance of the informant for commission of a crime punishable under Sections 147/148/307/302/201/149/212 of I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that while the trial was going on, 23 prosecution witnesses have been examined in the meantime, an application filed at the instance of the Page 1 of 5. defence under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W No.22 i.e. I.O. for confronting him with certain questions which have been reflected in the Petition dated 04.08.2025, at Annexure-2. On perusal of the questionnaire, it appears that defence wanted to confirm the statement of the P.W. 4 with the I.O. of the case. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.4 was recorded after he was recalled on an application of the Petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he did not get any opportunity to confront the I.O. with such statement of the P.W. No.-4 which cases recorded after examination of the I.O.(PW.-22). 5. In course of his argument learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that taking into consideration seriousness and the gravity of the allegation as well as the quantum of punishment that can be imposed in the event the petitioner is found guilty, the learned trial court should have allowed the Petitioner to recall the I.O. i.e. P.W. No.22 in this case. He further submitted that the law guarantees every accused persons of a fair trial. Therefore, learned trial court, taking into consideration the questionnaire attached to the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at Aenxure-2 should have permitted the defence to cross-examine the I.O. on a very limited aspect as has specifically been indicated in the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 6. He further contended that although the case was targeted by this Court, however, such direction of this Court to conclude trial cannot take away the right of the petitioner to defend the case properly and to examine the witnesses as is required to prove his innocence, as the concept fair trial is a guarantee given to every citizen by the Constitution of India. He further submitted that three questions have been formulated in the questionnaire which are Page 2 of 5. relevant for the purpose of the present trial and the same are essential for a just decision of the case. 7. It was also contended that it does not matter how many times the witness have been recalled, the only relevant consideration so far the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is concerned is that the learned trial court is to examine as to whether the further examination of the witness on recall is essential for a just decision of the case. Furthermore, referring to the impugned order it was contended that the learned trial court while rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 08.09.2025, committed a gross error of procedure and failed to apply the principle laid down under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and the application has been rejected only on the ground of delay. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner be provided with another opportunity to recall the I.O. of this case by allowing his petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as has been held by a recent judgment of this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned trial court rejecting the application of the Petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. He further contended that the questions formulated in the questionnaire are not relevant for the present trial. Therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner to recall the I.O. i.e. P.W. No.22 in this case. As such, learned counsel for the State contended that the present application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. He further contended that the order dated 08.09.2025 reveals that the P.W. No.22 was earlier recalled for his further cross examination in Page 3 of 5. this case. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts on a close scrutiny of order dated 08.09.2025, this Court observes that the Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of his prayer for further cross-examination of P.W. No.22, who is the I.O. of this case. Upon a careful consideration of the background facts of the present case, further taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the allegation and the quantum of punishment that is likely to be inflicted, this Court is of the view that accused Petitioner be provided another opportunity to defend his case. Moreover, the Constitution of India guarantees a right to a fair trial to every citizen of the country. Undoubtedly, the relevancy of the questionnaire, before recalling the witness for further cross-examination, is a matter to be considered by the learned trial court. 10. Without entering into the aforesaid dispute, this Court is of the considered view that the argument of the Petitioner’s Counsel supported by the grounds raised have enough substance in it to convince this Court to come to a conclusion that an opportunity should have been provided to the Petitioner to further cross-examine a material witness like the I.O. (P.W-22). Thus, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present application by setting aside order dated 08.09.2025. Further, the learned trial court is directed to recall P.W.22, the I.O. of this case, for further cross-examination strictly in terms of the questionnaire that has been attached to the petition at Annexure-2. This Court further directs that the P.W. No.22 shall be recalled, cross-examined and discharged on a single day within a Page 4 of 5. period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of today’s order. Further, since the matter has already been targeted, the learned trial court shall make every endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. The Petitioner is directed to cooperate with the learned trial court for an early conclusion of the trial. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC application stands disposed of. Rubi ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Nov-2025 14:22:26