Shri. Vairavan A.R. v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** CRR/25/2025 IA No. CRAN/1/2025 Shri. Vairavan A.R.

Vs The State Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Karmakar ... for the State April 10, 2025 [AKB] Item No.8 Re: CRAN/1/2025

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the CRAN/1/2025.

2. The said CRAN/1/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. Re: CRR/25/2025

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being the accused in the Trial court wanted to cross examine the victim, victim's mother and victim's maternal aunt on the same day since there was a chance of disclosure of his defence. For the purpose of persuading learned Special Judge under POCSO Act he had made an application in that regard on 04.04.2025, but the said prayer was rejected by the learned Special Judge and

against such rejection order dated 04.04.2025 the present revisional application has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer as made out in the said revisional application. According to him, on 04.04.2025 the victim girl was present, but she was released without examination by the court as the present petitioner filed the said application praying for allowing him to cross examine all the three witnesses namely victim girl, her mother and her aunt on the same day.

5. I have considered the materials on record. It is true that the accused has some legal right to defer cross examination of some witnesses if he feels that there is a chance of disclosure of his defence.

But the prayer of the accused/petitioner that the court should ask all the three witnesses to appear including victim girl for examination on one day and thereafter he will cross examine all the three witnesses on the self same day, cannot be allowed since the present law regarding examination of victim girl does not support the view of the petitioner. However, at the same time, the learned Special Judge should also consider the predicament of the defence that if the accused is directed to cross examine witnesses one after another, there is every

possibility of disclosure of his defence which may be detrimental to him in future, but such practice should not include the victim girl's deposition. The petitioner should be given a chance to cross examine the victim's mother and aunt one after another after the examination in chief of said two witnesses are over.

6. In other words, I want to say the deferment of cross examination of the said two witnesses excepting the victim girl may be granted for a limited period so that the defence of the petitioner is not jeopardized.

7. In view of the same I therefore direct the learned Special Judge to consider the prayer for deferment of cross examination of victim girl's mother and her aunt for a limited period as indicated above for the sake of justice without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

8. With this direction the instant revisional application being CRR/25/2025 is disposed of.

9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order if applied for, the same be supplied to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)