The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4877 of 2025 Duli @ Buli Pradhan and another ..... Petitioners State Of Odisha Represented By Adv. - Purna Chandra Das Opposite Party Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC -versus- ..... CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 21.11.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners 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-Petitioners, thereby invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khordha in S.T. Case No.107 of 2022, whereby the application of the accused- Petitioners under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall P.W. Nos.1, 16 & 20 for their further cross-examination has been rejected by the learned trial Court. On perusal of the record, it appears that Page 1 of 5. the present Petitioners have been arrayed as accused in a sessions case which was registered for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 302 & 34 of IPC. After registration of the FIR the investigation has been carried out and a charge-sheet has been filed against the Petitioners. In the meantime several witnesses have been examined from the side of the prosecution. When the matter was posted for examination of the last witness from the side of the prosecution, i.e. P.W. 22, an application was filed on behalf of the defense under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 18.10.2025 with a prayer to recall P.W. Nos.1, 16 & 20. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that certain statements were inadvertently not put forth to the above noted witnesses which are likely to cause prejudice to the case of the defense. He further submitted that taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the offence and the magnitude of the punishment that is likely to be inflicted, the learned trial Court should have provided an opportunity to the accused-Petitioners to defend their case properly. It was also contended that the further cross-examination of the above noted three witnesses are essential for a just decision of the case. 5. Referring to the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the application of the Petitioners under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned trial Court only on the ground of delay. He further submitted that although the present trial has been targeted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in special leave to appeal (Criminal) No.16038 of 2025 and the learned trial Court has been directed to complete the trial within Page 2 of 5. three months, and such time is likely to expire in the 2nd week of January, 2026. Therefore, there is ample time to permit the accused- Petitioners to further cross-examine the above noted three witnesses. It was also contended that unless the accused-Petitioners are permitted to further cross-examine the above noted three witnesses they are likely to be seriously prejudiced. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioners, referring to Section 311 of Cr.P.C., contended before this Court that the learned trial Court has ample power to recall and re-examine any witness if the Court comes to a conclusion that such re-examination or recall is essential for a just decision of the case. In the instant case although further cross-examine of the witnesses who have been named in the application was relevant, the learned trial Court without considering the merits of the matter has rejected the application only on the ground of delay. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that delay alone cannot be a ground to reject the application of the Petitioners for further cross-examination of the above noted three witnesses. The learned trial Court is duty bound to ensure that a free and fair trial is afforded to the accused which is a constitutional guarantee to every citizen of this country. In furtherance of the aforesaid constitutional principle the learned trial Court should have allowed the application of the Petitioners for further examination of the above noted witnesses. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khordha in S.T. Case No.107 of 2022. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned Court has not committed any illegality at all in rejecting the Page 3 of 5. application of the Petitioners for recall and re-examination of the witnesses as has been mentioned hereinabove. He further submitted that the trial has been targeted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the learned trial Court is under a legal obligation to conclude the trial within the aforesaid time stipulation. Moreover, learned counsel for the State contended that he has no necessity to further cross-examine P.W. No.1, 16 & 20. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present application being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, on a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, this Court observed that the application of the Petitioners has been rejected principally on the ground of delay and keeping in view the time stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to conclude the trial. While applying the underlying principle of Section 311 of Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered view that delay is not a ground to reject an application for re-examination of the witness if such re- examination is essential for a just decision of the case. On a close scrutiny of order dated 06.11.2025, this Court found that the impugned order does not speak anything about the necessity of further examination of the witnesses on merits. Keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the allegation as well as the punishment likely to be inflicted in the event the Petitioners are found guilty, this Court deems it proper to provide an opportunity to the Petitioners to cross-examine P.W. Nos.16 & 20. Accordingly, impugned order dated 06.11.2025 is hereby set aside. Further, it is directed that on production of a certified copy of this order within a week from Page 4 of 5. today, the learned trial Court shall do well to recall P.W. Nos.16 & 20 for their further cross-examination and a date be fixed for such further cross-examination. It is also directed that the further cross- examination shall be concluded on a single day and the P.W. Nos.16 & 20 shall be discharged on the very same day. The aforesaid direction shall be subject to the Petitioners paying a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of Local Bar Association within fifteen days and furnishing money receipt thereof in proof of deposit. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC application stands disposed of. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Page 5 of 5. Date: 25-Nov-2025 19:25:01