1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a
challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 20.12.2023,
passed by the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, No.2,
Jaipur Metropolitan-I (for short, “Trial Court”) in case No.04/2023,
by which the application submitted by the accused-petitioner
under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for re-summoning the prosecutrix for
the purpose of cross-examination, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR
No.614/2022 was registered against the accused-petitioner along
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 03:31:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25909] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-131/2024]
with co-accused-Rohit with the Police Station Mahesh Nagar,
District Jaipur City (South) for the offences punishable under
Sections 376, 376D, 376DA, 384, 120B of IPC and Sections 3, 4,
5(g), 5(l), 6. 16 & 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Counsel submits
that after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the
accused-petitioner before the Trial Court, while charge-sheet was
submitted against the co-accused Rohit before the Juvenile Justice
Board (for short, “JJB”), as he was juvenile on the date of the
alleged incident. Counsel submits that during the course of the
trial after the statements of the prosecutrix were recorded before
the Trial Court on 19.04.2023, she was cross-examined by the
petitioner on 25.04.2023 before the Trial Court. Thereafter,
statements of the prosecutrix were recorded before the JJB,
wherein she has denied the alleged factum of rape having been
committed upon her by any of the accused persons. Counsel
submits that the prosecutrix’s aforesaid statement was recorded
before the JJB on 12.10.2023. Hence, under such changed
circumstances, the accused-petitioner submitted an application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-summoning the prosecutrix in the
witness-box before the Trial Court for the purpose of cross-
examination. Counsel submits that re-summoning of the
prosecutrix is essential for just decision of the case, as she has
not alleged any offence against the accused-petitioner and the co-
accused-Rohit in her statement recorded before the JJB. Hence,
re-summoning the prosecutrix before the Trial Court is essential,
however, the Trial Court has rejected the aforesaid application
submitted by the accused-petitioner on a technical count that after
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 03:31:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25909] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-131/2024]
recording of prosecutrix’s statements, she is not required to be re-
summoned and the Trial Court held that the petitioner has the
liberty to submit the necessary documentary evidence in his
defense at the appropriate stage of the trial. Counsel submits that
under these circumstances, interference of this Court is
warranted.
