Hariram Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66685
1 MCRC-35355-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35355 of 2026
HARIRAM YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Niyati Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Garima Tiwari - P.L. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the
petitioner/accused challenging the order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the
learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) Betul in Case No.SC/12/2026 whereby
the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the mother of prosecutrix was
closed. The petitioner is facing trial arising out of FIR No.1093/2025,
registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Betul (M.P.) for offence
punishable under Section 64(2), 65(1), 119(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 &
section 3, 4, 5, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. After investigation, charge sheet was
filed and charges were framed by the learned trial Court. On 24.06.2026,
mother of the prosecutrix appeared before the trial Court and her
examination-in-chief was recorded. The defence counsel sought time for
cross-examination by moving an application dated 24.06.2026 which was
rejected by the trial Court. Consequently, the right of the petitioner to cross-
examine the witness was closed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:02:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66685
2 MCRC-35355-2026
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court

committed an error in closing the right of cross-examination without
properly considering the reasons stated in the application seeking
adjournment. It is submitted that cross-examination of material prosecution
witnesses is an essential part of fair trial and that denial of such opportunity
causes serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is
no allegation that the petitioner is habitually seeking adjournment or
deliberately delaying the proceeding. A prayer is therefore made for setting
aside the impugned order and granting one effective opportunity to cross-
examine the witnesses subject to any reasonable condition.
3. Learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposed the petition and
submits that prosecution case is under the POCSO Act and the trial Court is
required to ensure expeditious trial. It is contended that the defence cannot
claim repeated opportunities as a matter of right and the trial Court has
rightly closed the opportunity.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5 . Cross-examination is an important safeguard for testing the
truthfulness and reliability of prosecution evidence and forms an integral part
of fair criminal trial. At the same time the trial Court is entitled to prevent
unnecessary adjournment particularly in proceedings under the POCSO Act.
However, closure of right of cross-examination of a material witnesses is a
serious consequence and ordinarily ought not to be restored unless the
conduct of accused or the defence demonstrated deliberate or persistence
abuse of process.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:02:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66685
3 MCRC-35355-2026
6. In the present case, the witness whose cross-examination has been

closed is mother of prosecutrix. The petitioner has approached this Court
against the order passed on the very date when the application for
adjournment was rejected. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this
Court to demonstrate that the petitioner has repeatedly or deliberately
avoided cross-examination.
7 . In these circumstances, denial of one effective opportunity to
cross-examine a material witnesses is likely to cause substantial prejudice to
the defence. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS can be
exercised to secure the ends of justice. Considering the nature of right
involved and the circumstances placed on record, this Court is of the view
that one final opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioner while
balancing the requirement of expeditious disposal of POCSO Act.
8. Accordingly the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 24.06.2026,
passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Act Betul in Case
No.SC/12/2026 is hereby set aside to the extent that it closes the right of the
petitioner to cross-examine mother of the prosecutrix. The petitioner shall be
afforded one effective and one final opportunity to cross-examine the said
witnesses on the date fixed by the trial Court. The petitioner shall ensure that
the cross-examination is conducted on the date fixed and shall not seek
unnecessary adjournment. The trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the
trial in accordance with law and take all endeavors to conclude the
proceedings expeditiously.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:02:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66685
4 MCRC-35355-2026
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Jasleen


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:02:48