Indore High Court No To Stall POCSO Trial, Upholds Recall Of Witness

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with a trial court's decision allowing the prosecution to recall a key witness and introduce additional electronic evidence in a POCSO case, ruling that courts have wide powers to ensure the truth is brought before them, even at an advanced stage of the trial.

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by accused Pratul Choudhary, challenging the June 4 order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura.

The trial court had allowed the prosecution to recall the father of the prosecutrix and place additional electronic evidence, including alleged video clips, Instagram chats and mobile data, on record under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to the erstwhile Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The petitioner argued that the prosecution's application was filed at a highly belated stage, after the completion of prosecution evidence, the recording of the accused's statement and when the matter was listed for final arguments.

It was contended that the electronic material had existed even before the registration of the FIR but was never produced during the investigation. The defence further alleged that the move was an attempt to fill gaps in the prosecution's case and linked it to a separate monetary dispute involving cheque dishonour proceedings worth Rs 14 lakh.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court observed that the decisive consideration under Section 348 of the BNSS is whether the proposed evidence is essential for arriving at a just decision. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, including VN Patil vs K Niranjan Kumar, the court reiterated that criminal courts have the authority to summon, recall or re-examine witnesses "at any stage" of the proceedings if doing so is necessary to prevent a failure of justice.

The court held that the fact that the trial had reached the stage of final arguments could not, by itself, prevent the trial court from exercising its statutory powers to admit evidence that may be crucial to determining the truth. It found no perversity or material irregularity in the trial court's order permitting the recall of the witness and the admission of the electronic evidence.

At the same time, the High Court safeguarded the rights of the accused by directing that he be given a full and adequate opportunity to cross-examine the recalled witness and challenge the electronic evidence. With these observations, the court dismissed both the criminal revision petition and the accompanying application seeking a stay of the trial proceedings.