Satya Swain vs State Of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite … on 13 February, 2026
inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Orissa High Court
Satya Swain vs State Of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite … on 13 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.399 of 2026
(A petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.)
Satya Swain .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash, Adv.
For Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-06.02.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.02.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner, in the present petition, seeks quashing of the order dated
26.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special
Judge (POCSO), Sundargarh in SPL G.R. Case No.44 of 2021, arising out
of Bonai P.S. Case No.41 of 2021, whereby the petitioner’s application for
summoning the issuing authority of the Board of Secondary Education,
Odisha to prove the authenticity of the date of birth recorded in the
High School Certificate of the victim has been rejected.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56
i. The father of the victim lodged an F.I.R. before Bonai P.S. on
09.04.2021, inter alia alleging that on 08.04.2021, while he and his
wife were working at their tiffin stall at the bus stand, his wife
went to their house to fetch oil and found their middle daughter
lying unconscious.
ii. The victim was immediately taken to Bonai P.H.C. and was
thereafter shifted to the Government Hospital, Rourkela, for
further treatment.
iii. On 09.04.2021, the informant submitted a written report alleging
that the present petitioner had forcibly committed rape upon the
victim and thereafter administered phenyl with the intention to
kill her, as a result of which she sustained some bodily injuries.
iv. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the
statement of the victim and other witnesses, visited the spot, and
seized certain materials connected with the case.
v. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted,
on the basis of which the learned trial court framed charges under
Sections 451, 376(1), and 307 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the
POCSO Act. The charges were read over and explained to the
accused vide order dated 17.02.2022 in SPL G.R. Case No. 44 of
2021.
vi. The prosecution examined its witnesses and relied upon the High
School Certificate of the victim to establish her age.In his
deposition, P.W.1 stated that the victim was born at Bonai
Hospital, however, he admitted that he did not possess any birth-
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56
related document and that no such document was produced at the
time of the victim’s admission to school. The Investigating Officer
also admitted that he had not verified the genuineness of the High
School Certificate, nor seized the school admission register, nor
examined the Headmaster, nor collected any birth certificate.
vii. During defence evidence, D.W.6 produced information obtained
under the Right to Information Act from the Sub-Divisional
Hospital, Bonaigarh, indicating that no child was born on
26.03.2005 to the parents of the victim at the said hospital.
Certified copies of the relevant birth register were also produced,
which did not reflect the birth of the victim on the date mentioned
in the High School Certificate.
viii. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner filed an
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon the
Chairman, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, to establish the
source and basis of the date of birth recorded in the High School
Certificate.
ix. The matter was heard on 24.12.2025 and the learned trial court
rejected the petition and posted the case to 15.01.2026 for defence
evidence as a last opportunity.
x. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge
(POCSO), Sundargarh in SPL G.R. Case No. 44 of 2021, the
petitioner has filed the present petition.
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
i. The petitioner submitted that the learned Additional District
Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Sundargarh has committed a
manifest error of law in rejecting the petitioner’s application for
summoning the competent authority of the Board of Secondary
Education, Odisha, despite the fact that the age of the victim
constitutes the very foundation for attracting the provisions of the
ii. The petitioner contended that the learned trial court failed to
appreciate that the school certificate relied upon by the
prosecution to establish the age of the victim was admitted
without proper proof of its source, authenticity, and foundational
documents, such as the admission register or the birth certificate.
iii. The petitioner submitted that P.W.1, who is the father of the
victim, has categorically admitted in his evidence that no birth
certificate or any contemporaneous document was produced at the
time of admission of the victim in school, thereby creating a
serious doubt regarding the correctness of the date of birth
mentioned in the school certificate.
iv. The petitioner submitted that the Investigating Officer has
expressly admitted in his deposition that he did not verify the
genuineness of the school or High School Certificate, did not seize
the school admission register, did not examine the Headmaster of
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56the school, and did not seize the birth certificate of the victim,
which amounts to a grossly defective investigation causing
prejudice to the accused.
v. The petitioner submitted that material obtained under the Right to
Information Act has been placed on record indicating that no child
was born on 26.03.2005 to the parents of the victim at S.D.H.,
Bonaigarh, whereas the matriculation certificate reflects the date of
birth of the victim as 26.03.2005, which directly contradicts the
school certificate relied upon by the prosecution. In view of this
contradiction regarding the date of birth of the victim, the
petitioner had prayed before the learned trial court for
summoning the concerned Board officials to prove the High
School Examination Certificate, as such examination is necessary
to determine its probative value.
vi. The petitioner submitted that summoning the issuing authority of
the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha was essential for the
just and proper adjudication of the case, particularly to ascertain
the basis on which the date of birth was recorded in the High
School Certificate, and that denial of such opportunity amounts to
a violation of the petitioner’s right to a fair trial which forms a
facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
vii. The petitioner submitted that the power under Section 528 of the
BNSS, 2023 is intended to enable the Court to discover the truth,
and that the learned trial court has exercised its discretion
arbitrarily and mechanically, ignoring the settled principle that
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56such power must be exercised whenever the evidence sought is
relevant and essential for a just decision of the case.
viii. The petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated
26.12.2025 reflects non-application of judicial mind, as the learned
court has rejected the petition solely on technical considerations
without examining the material inconsistencies in the prosecution
evidence relating to age determination.
ix. The petitioner submitted that age determination in a POCSO case
is not a mere procedural formality but a jurisdictional fact, and
any doubt regarding age must be resolved after proper verification
from the competent authority, failing which continuation of the
proceedings itself would amount to an abuse of the process of
Court.
x. The petitioner submitted that the learned trial court has acted with
undue haste in posting the matter for defence evidence by treating
the opportunity as a “last chance”, thereby curtailing the valuable
statutory and constitutional rights of the accused to effectively
defend himself.
xi. The petitioner further submitted that the impugned order has
resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice, and if allowed to stand,
the petitioner shall suffer irreparable injury, whereas no prejudice
could have been caused to the prosecution by summoning the
issuing authority for clarification.
xii. The petitioner submitted that the object underlying Section 311 of
the Code is to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice on
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56
account of any mistake of either party in bringing valuable
evidence on record or in leaving ambiguity in the statements of
witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is
whether such evidence is essential for the just decision of the case.
The said provision is not confined to the benefit of the accused
alone, and it would not amount to an improper exercise of power
to summon a witness merely because the evidence sought may
support the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused.
The section is of general application and applies to all proceedings,
inquiries, and trials under the Code, empowering the Court to
summon any witness at any stage of such proceedings. However,
though the provision confers wide powers upon the Court, the
discretion so conferred is required to be exercised judiciously, as
the wider the power, the greater the necessity for application of
judicial mind.
xiii. The petitioner further submitted that unless the impugned order is
set aside and the competent authority of the Board of Secondary
Education, Odisha is summoned to give evidence to prove the
contents of the High School Certificate, the petitioner will suffer
irreparable loss and injury.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
i. The opposite parties opposed the prayer contending that the
application is unnecessary and intended to delay the trial,
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56particularly when the High School Examination Certificate, being
a public document issued by a statutory Board, is admissible in
evidence.
ii. It was further submitted that no essential material has been placed
to doubt the genuineness of the certificate and that the power
under Section 311 Cr.P.C., being discretionary, is to be exercised
only when the evidence sought is essential for a just decision of the
case. According to them, the learned trial court has rightly rejected
the petition.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE
(POCSO), SUNDARGARH:
5. The learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO),
Sundargarh, upon hearing the parties and considering the materials on
record, observed that the High School Examination Certificate is a public
document issued by a statutory Board in discharge of its official
functions and is admissible in evidence under Sections 74, 77, and 35 of
the Indian Evidence Act.
6. The court further held that the defence had not laid any foundational
material to suggest that the certificate was forged or fabricated and that
mere denial of the date of birth was insufficient to summon the issuing
authority. Observing that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is
discretionary and is to be exercised only when the evidence sought is
essential for a just decision of the case, and not to fill up lacunae or delay
the trial, the court concluded that summoning the Board officials was
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56unnecessary. Accordingly, the petition was rejected as being devoid of
merit.
V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed
on record.
8. The issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether
the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO),
Sundargarh was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application under
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of the issuing authority of
the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha for the purpose of
establishing theauthenticity of the date of birth recorded in the High
School Examination Certificate of the victim.
9. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is apposite to examine
the scope and ambit of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.Section 348 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is analogous to Section 311
Cr.P.C.The provision reads as follows:
“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine
person present: Any Court may, at any stage of inquiry,
trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any
person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance,
though not summoned as a witness, or recall or re-
examine any person already examined, and the Court
shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any
such person if his evidence appears to be essential for the
just decision of the case.”
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56
10. The scope and ambit of the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been
authoritatively explained by the Supreme Court in Natasha Singh v.
CBI1, wherein it was observed:
“8. Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon a
material witness, or to examine a person present at “any
stage” of “any enquiry”, or “trial”, or “any other
proceedings” under CrPC, or to summon any person as a
witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has
already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be
essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case.
Undoubtedly, CrPC has conferred a very wide
discretionary power upon the court in this respect, but
such a discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not
arbitrarily. The power of the court in this context is very
wide, and in exercise of the same, it may summon any
person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other
proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such
power even suo motu if no such application has been filed
by either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy
itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a
witness, or to recall him for further examination in order
to arrive at a just decision of the case.”
11. In Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar2, the Supreme
Courtobserved as replicated herein:
“14. A conspicuous reading of Section 311 CrPC would
show that widest of the powers have been invested with
the courts when it comes to the question of summoning a
witness or to recall or re-examine any witness already
examined. A reading of the provision shows that the
expression “any” has been used as a prefix to “court”,
“inquiry”, “trial”, “other proceeding”, “person as a
witness”, “person in attendance though not summoned1
(2013) 5 SCC 741.
2
(2013) 14 SCC 461.
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56
as a witness”, and “person already examined”. By using
the said expression “any” as a prefix to the various
expressions mentioned above, it is ultimately stated that
all that was required to be satisfied by the court was only
in relation to such evidence that appears to the court to be
essential for the just decision of the case. Section 138 of
the Evidence Act, prescribed the order of examination of a
witness in the court. The order of re-examination is also
prescribed calling for such a witness so desired for such
re-examination. Therefore, a reading of Section 311 CrPC
and Section 138 Evidence Act, insofar as it comes to the
question of a criminal trial, the order of re-examination at
the desire of any person under Section 138, will have to
necessarily be in consonance with the prescription
contained in Section 311 CrPC. It is, therefore,
imperative that the invocation of Section 311 CrPC and
its application in a particular case can be ordered by the
court, only by bearing in mind the object and purport of
the said provision, namely, for achieving a just decision of
the case as noted by us earlier. The power vested under
the said provision is made available to any court at any
stage in any inquiry or trial or other proceeding initiated
under the Code for the purpose of summoning any person
as a witness or for examining any person in attendance,
even though not summoned as witness or to recall or re-
examine any person already examined. Insofar as
recalling and re-examination of any person already
examined is concerned, the court must necessarily
consider and ensure that such recall and re-examination
of any person, appears in the view of the court to be
essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore, the
paramount requirement is just decision and for that
purpose the essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-
examined has to be ascertained. To put it differently,
while such a widest power is invested with the court, it is
needless to state that exercise of such power should be
made judicially and also with extreme care and caution.”
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56
12. It is thus well settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is
intended to prevent failure of justice arising from a party’s omission to
bring material evidence on record. The provision is couched in the
widest terms so as to enable the Court to secure all necessary evidence
for a just decision of the case.
13. The determinative test for exercise of such power is whether the
evidence sought by the petitioner is essential to the just decision of the
case. Whether a witness is material must be assessed in the facts and
circumstances of each case. Though the provision confers wide
discretion, it must be exercised judicially and sparingly and not
arbitrarily.
14. The discretion vested in the trial court is ordinarily not to be interfered
with, unless it is demonstrated that the same has been exercised
perversely or in disregard of settled principles of law.
15. In the present case, the Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge
(POCSO) has taken note of the fact that the High School Examination
Certificate relied upon by the prosecution is a public document issued
by a statutory Board in discharge of its official functions and is
admissible in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
16. The court has further recorded that no prima facie material was placed
before it to indicate that the certificate was forged, fabricated, or
otherwise unreliable.
17. The petitioner seeks to rely upon certain admissions made by P.W.1 and
the Investigating Officer, along with information obtained under the
Right to Information Act, to contend that the date of birth recorded in
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56
the certificate is doubtful. However, the absence of a corresponding
entry in the hospital birth register, by itself, does not necessarily
discredit a certificate issued by a statutory Board whose certificate is
treated as most authenticated one nor does it automatically render
summoning of the issuing authority essential within the meaning of
Section 311 Cr.P.C.
18. It is further raises a question as to whether the date of birth reflected in
the High School Examination Certificate is ultimately to be accepted is a
matter to be determined upon appreciation of the entire evidence at the
stage of final adjudication.
19. The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only when the
evidence sought is essential for a just decision of the case. In the absence
of compelling material demonstrating such necessity, the provision
cannot be invoked solely to further test the evidentiary value of a
document already on record. The over probing attitude is clothed to
necessary delay the trial process.
20. In the case at hand, it cannot be said that the learned Additional District
Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) has ignored relevant material or
ignored the basic dicta in law. The discretion exercised does not appear
to be arbitrary, perverse, or in violation of settled principles governing
Section 311 Cr.P.C.
VI. CONCLUSION:
21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view
that the learned trial court has exercised the discretion vested under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a judicious manner. The impugned order does not
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Feb-2026 17:33:56
suffer from any perversity, illegality, or non-application of mind so as to
warrant interference by this Court.
22. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the evidence sought to be
adduced by summoning the issuing authority of the Board of Secondary
Education, Odisha is so essential to the just decision of the case so as to
attract the mandatory part of Section 311 Cr.P.C.
23. In view of the foregoing analysis, the present petition stands dismissed.
24. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 13th February, 2026/-
Page 14
