While observing that the right of the accused to defend himself with competent legal advice should not be lost sight of, the Calcutta High Court has allowed the Trial Court to conduct re-cross-examination of the witnesses on the points mentioned in the revisional application in a POCSO case.

The High Court was considering a revisional application challenging the order of the Special Judge (POCSO) in a case registered under Sections 6,12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 read with Section 376,506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act whereby the Trial Judge rejected the petitioner/ accused’s prayer for recalling of seven prosecution witnesses for re-cross-examination.

The Single Bench of Justice Apurba Sinha Ray held, “It appears that although the victim 2026:CHC-PB:8 4 and vulnerable witnesses have been given sufficient protection and privilege under the prevalent law of land, as depicted in the order dated 15.10.2025, but at the same time, the right of the accused to defend himself with the competent legal advice should not be lost sight of. Let us see whether the grievance of the petitioner is unfounded, baseless or it is one of dilatory tactics on the part of the petitioner.”

Advocate Gopala Binnu Kumar represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Sumit Kumar Karmakar represented the State.

Factual Background

The case as set up by the Petitioner was that in the year 2022, the Trial Judge convicted the accused but the said judgment was set aside in an appeal. The Trial Judge was directed to examine the accused under Section 313 of Code of the Criminal Procedure and to write a judgment afresh in accordance with law. In view of such directions, the Trial Judge completed the examination of the accused. The newly appointed advocate on behalf of the accused had found that the cross-examination of vital witnesses was not properly done by the erstwhile Counsel of the accused. This petition was rejected by the Trial Judge.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Trial Judge had rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the Supreme Court had held that recall of victim/witnesses in POCSO matters should be avoided unless the same is essential. The Special Judge had also mentioned in his order that mere change of Counsel or a general allegation of an ineffective cross-examination cannot be a ground for reopening of prosecution evidence.

“The observation of the learned Trial Judge is absolutely correct and there are no two opinions that the vulnerable witnesses in POCSO matters should not be called time and again at the instance of the accused on flimsy grounds. But each case has to be judged on its own merits”, it stated.

After going through the evidence of the victim, her parents and other witnesses, the Bench noted that although the victim and vulnerable witnesses have been given sufficient protection and privilege under the prevalent law of land, but the right of the accused to defend himself with competent legal advice should not be lost sight of.

The Bench found the crossexamination of the witnesses done on behalf of the accused to be deficient, casual. As per the Bench, if such cryptic cross-examination was allowed to remain on the record then there were chances that the accused might not be able to defend his case properly in accordance with law.

“The laches on the part of the concerned advocate of the accused may ultimately cost the accused heavily in near future, and as the petitioner is now able to get competent legal advice to defend his case, I think that the prayer for re-cross-examination of the PWs on the points mentioned in the revisional application should be allowed since it is absolutely essential for the accused to defend his case properly”, it added.

Thus, setting aside the impugned order, the Bench directed the Special Judge to allow the prayer for re-cross-examination of the witnesses on the points mentioned in the revisional application.

Cause Title: Shri Krishna Mohan Das v. The State (Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-PB:8)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Gopala Binnu Kumar, Vinita Dev

State: Advocate Sumit Kumar Karmakar

Click here to read/download Order


Calcutta High CourtJustice Apurba Sinha Ray

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.