NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that a rape survivor should not be harassed with repeated calls to appear in court during trial proceedings for cross examination. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma quashed an order passed by Tripura HC which had allowed the accused’s plea to recall the survivor for examination four years after she was already cross-examined. It said the prosecutrix had already been subjected to the ordeal of deposition and cross-examination on four separate occasions before the trial court, in addition to having her statement recorded during the investigation and before the magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC and it was harsh to recall her four years after she was cross-examined.“Directing recall would inflict further and unjustifiable hardship upon the prosecutrix. The witnesses cannot be expected to face the hardship of appearing in court repeatedly, particularly in sensitive cases. It can result in undue hardship for the victims, especially so of heinous crimes, if they are required to repeatedly appear in court to face cross-examination,” SC said. HC had passed the order to recall a survivor under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code on a plea filed by the accused. Noting that the application was filed after four years from the completion of her cross-examination of the prosecutrix and sufficient ground doesn’t exist for recalling the prosecutrix after such a prolonged delay, the court allowed the plea of state govt which challenged the HC order.Section 311 of the CrPC states that “any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code, summon any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and 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 it to be essential to the just decision of the case.The court said the power conferred under Section 311 undoubtedly is wide, and such power is required to be exercised sparingly and in a judicious manner, and not arbitrarily. “Mere observation that recall was necessary for ensuring a fair trial is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course, and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily,” it said, while citing previous orders.In this case, the prosecutrix was first examined in chief and cross-examined on June 4, 2018, followed by further cross-examination in Aug 2018. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall and re-examination of the prosecutrix. She was further examined and re-cross-examined in Aug and Nov 2019. Four years later, the accused sought to recall her in the witness box, which was rejected by the trial court but allowed by HC. SC, however, has now quashed the HC order.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos’Apologise Immediately’: Nepal Opposition Rips Into PM Balen Shah Over India Border RemarkAfter Amit Shah Meeting, Annamalai Exit Speculation Grows As New Party Talk IntensifiesCBSE-Coempt Dispute Escalates Amid Conflict Of Interest Claims And Strong Denials’Even Hitler Did Not…’: Mamata Slams BJP Over ‘Police Raj’ In Bengal, Attack On Abhishek Banerjee’Cooker Only’ Audio Row Deepens Congress Rift As Zameer Denies Viral Recording Claims | WatchSanjay Singh Confronts Police Officials During Student Interaction Over Exam Paper LeaksMonkey Snatches ₹2 Lakh Bag In UP Court, Climbs Tree And Showers Currency Notes From AboveIndia-US Trade Deal Nears Finish Line, First Tranche May Be Signed Soon: Piyush GoyalTMC Expels Two MLAs, Ritabrata Banerjee And Sandipan Saha, Amid Signature Mismatch RowRahul Gandhi flags ‘phone-scanned’ answer sheets as CBSE-OSM tender row deepens123PhotostoriesOut of the shadows: The Women who made Madhubani art globalTracing the Indian Art forms that conquered the worldCucumber (Kheera) vs Snake Cucumber (Kakdi): Which is more hydrating and how much to consume dailyKatrina Kaif’s post-pregnancy style era is here, and it starts with a killer black overcoatHollywood’s ugliest custody battles: From Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie to Rob Kardashian and Blac ChynaIs Anushka Sharma’s white ensemble RCB’s new lucky charm? A throwback to her 2025 IPL finale lookTop 10 Indian cities where property prices have risen the most in 2026From the elite class’s hobby to contemporary decorative: How did bonsai making turn into a modern-day art form?Love quote of the day by Louis de Bernières: ‘Love is not breathlessness; it’s not excitement’How Ranveer Singh and Farhan Akhtar’s friendship exploded over ‘Don 3’: Inside Rs 45 crore fallout that led to FWICE directive123Hot PicksVirat KohliTim David IPL FineVinod KhoslaAbhijeet DipkeMike Vrabel and Dianna ScandalShiva SenaLauren FryerTop TrendingMamata BanerjeeDelhi ITO FireWWE Clash Results and HighlightsGavin Yates-LyonsNorway ChessSupreme CourtMumbai Air India ColonyBSEB Bihar Sakashmta Pariksha Admit CardNTANEET Paper Leak
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that a rape survivor should not be harassed with repeated calls to appear in court during trial proceedings for cross examination. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma quashed an order passed by Tripura HC which had allowed the accused’s plea to recall the survivor for examination four years after she was already cross-examined. It said the prosecutrix had already been subjected to the ordeal of deposition and cross-examination on four separate occasions before the trial court, in addition to having her statement recorded during the investigation and before the magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC and it was harsh to recall her four years after she was cross-examined.“Directing recall would inflict further and unjustifiable hardship upon the prosecutrix. The witnesses cannot be expected to face the hardship of appearing in court repeatedly, particularly in sensitive cases. It can result in undue hardship for the victims, especially so of heinous crimes, if they are required to repeatedly appear in court to face cross-examination,” SC said. HC had passed the order to recall a survivor under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code on a plea filed by the accused. Noting that the application was filed after four years from the completion of her cross-examination of the prosecutrix and sufficient ground doesn’t exist for recalling the prosecutrix after such a prolonged delay, the court allowed the plea of state govt which challenged the HC order.Section 311 of the CrPC states that “any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code, summon any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and 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 it to be essential to the just decision of the case.The court said the power conferred under Section 311 undoubtedly is wide, and such power is required to be exercised sparingly and in a judicious manner, and not arbitrarily. “Mere observation that recall was necessary for ensuring a fair trial is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course, and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily,” it said, while citing previous orders.In this case, the prosecutrix was first examined in chief and cross-examined on June 4, 2018, followed by further cross-examination in Aug 2018. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall and re-examination of the prosecutrix. She was further examined and re-cross-examined in Aug and Nov 2019. Four years later, the accused sought to recall her in the witness box, which was rejected by the trial court but allowed by HC. SC, however, has now quashed the HC order.
