Case Note & Summary
The present Criminal Revision Application was filed by the applicant, Imran Rajubhai Musabhai Miraja, challenging the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Special POCSO Case No. 30/2021, whereby the application (Exh. 76) preferred by the applicant for reopening his right to cross-examine the victim-witness was rejected. The case originated from an FIR registered at City A Division Police Station, Surendranagar, for offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and trial commenced. The victim-witness was examined-in-chief on 19.02.2024, but thereafter she did not appear for cross-examination for nearly one year despite issuance of summons. When she finally appeared on 26.11.2025, the advocate for the applicant was suffering from a severe medical ailment and sought adjournment. The applicant filed an application (Exh. 76) for reopening the right to cross-examine, which was rejected by the trial court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the right to cross-examine is a fundamental part of a fair trial and that the trial court's rejection was too harsh. The court noted that the victim had not appeared for cross-examination for a year and that the defense advocate's illness was a valid ground. The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to permit the applicant to cross-examine the victim-witness on the next date of hearing, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the victim.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Fair Trial - Right to Cross-Examine - Reopening of Cross-Examination - The applicant sought reopening of his right to cross-examine the victim-witness in a POCSO case, which was rejected by the trial court. The High Court held that the right to cross-examine is a fundamental part of a fair trial and denial of opportunity due to the advocate's illness violates principles of natural justice. The court directed the trial court to permit cross-examination on the next date of hearing, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000. (Paras 1-6) B) Evidence Act - Cross-Examination - Sufficient Cause - Medical Grounds - The applicant's advocate was suffering from a severe medical ailment when the victim-witness appeared for cross-examination after a year. The High Court found that the trial court's rejection was too harsh and that the applicant had shown sufficient cause for reopening. (Paras 2-5) C) POCSO Act - Trial - Victim-Witness - Cross-Examination - The victim-witness had not appeared for cross-examination for one year despite summons. When she finally appeared, the defense advocate was ill. The High Court held that the trial court should have considered the medical ground and allowed the application to ensure a fair trial. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the applicant's application for reopening the right to cross-examine the victim-witness when the advocate was suffering from a severe medical ailment
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2025, and directed the trial court to permit the applicant to cross-examine the victim-witness on the next date of hearing, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the victim.
Law Points
- Right to cross-examine is a fundamental part of fair trial
- denial of opportunity due to advocate's illness violates principles of natural justice
- courts should adopt a liberal approach in reopening cross-examination when sufficient cause is shown
