Court emphasizes judicious use of discretionary powers to prevent victim harassment in sensitive cases.
In a significant decision, the Calcutta High Court has quashed a trial court's order that allowed the recall of a witness in a sensitive human trafficking case. The judgment, delivered by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, underscores the need for careful exercise of discretionary powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, especially in cases involving the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
The case involved a petitioner who was a victim of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. Her mother had lodged a complaint leading to a charge sheet against six accused individuals under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. After the victim's testimony was completed in March 2024, an application was made in August 2024 to recall her for further cross-examination, citing an oversight by a junior advocate. The trial court had granted this request, prompting the victim to file a revisional application challenging the decision.
The High Court found that the trial court's order lacked valid reasoning and failed to consider the undue hardship and harassment that repeated court appearances could cause the victim. Justice Das highlighted that the power to recall a witness is not a matter of course and should be exercised only for compelling reasons to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
In her judgment, Justice Das referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan and State (NCT) of Delhi v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, which stress the importance of ensuring fair trials without unnecessary delays or harassment of victims. The court also noted the principles outlined in Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, which aims to protect victims from repeated appearances in court.
The judgment also addressed the maintainability of the revisional application under Sections 397, 401, and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, affirming the court's authority to intervene in cases of gross abuse of the legal process.
Ultimately, the High Court allowed the revisional application, setting aside the trial court's order to recall the victim, and emphasized the need for judicial discretion to be exercised with caution and based on strong, valid reasons. The ruling is expected to have significant implications for similar cases, reinforcing the protection of victims in the judicial process.
Bottom Line:
Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Discretionary power to summon or recall a witness must be exercised judiciously, and not arbitrarily or capriciously. Recall is not a matter of course, and reasons for exercising this power must be valid and strong to prevent failure of justice.
Statutory provision(s): Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 397, 401, and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, 2012.
XXX v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2826358
