Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are accused in Special POCSO Case No. 29/2019 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Chandrapur, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27/06/2025. By that order, the trial court rejected their application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking recall of certain prosecution witnesses. The case arises from an incident reported on 06/04/2019, when the informant received a phone call from the Warden of a Girls Hostel at Infant Jesus Public School, Rajura, stating that two girls were unwell. Medical reports on 12/04/2019 indicated possible sexual abuse, leading to a report against unknown persons. During investigation, the victim girls implicated several persons, including the petitioners. Offences were registered under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013. The petitioners were arrested on 16/04/2019 and are under trial. The petitioners argued that the trial court erred in rejecting their recall application, as recalling the witnesses was necessary for a fair trial. The State opposed the petition, contending that the application was filed belatedly and was an attempt to delay the trial. The High Court examined the scope of Section 311 CrPC, noting that the power to recall witnesses is discretionary and must be exercised to subserve the ends of justice, not to fill gaps in the prosecution case or to cause prejudice to the other side. The court observed that the petitioners had already cross-examined the witnesses and the application appeared to be a dilatory tactic. The court also considered the limited scope of interference under Article 227, which is confined to cases of perversity or jurisdictional error. Finding no such error in the trial court's order, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the rejection of the recall application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Recall of Witnesses - Section 311 CrPC - Discretionary Power - The trial court rejected the application for recalling prosecution witnesses filed by the accused in a POCSO case. The High Court held that the power under Section 311 CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, not to fill gaps in the prosecution case or to cause delay. The court found no error in the trial court's order as the accused had already cross-examined the witnesses and the application appeared to be an attempt to delay the trial. (Paras 2-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, can interfere only if the subordinate court's order is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error. In this case, the trial court's order rejecting the recall application was neither perverse nor illegal, and thus no interference was warranted. (Paras 2, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for recalling prosecution witnesses in a POCSO case.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 27/06/2025 rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC. Rule discharged.
Law Points
- Section 311 CrPC
- recall of witnesses
- discretionary power
- POCSO Act
- Article 227
- scope of interference
