RAJENDRA SINGH SISODIYA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010291692026 2026:CGHC:39527
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed
by
SAIFAN
KHAN
SAIFAN
KHAN
CRMP No. 2020 of 2026
1 - Rajendra Singh Sisodiya S/o Ram Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o
Jamoniya Shankar P.S. Barkheda Kala District Ratlam M P
2 - Dharmendra Singh Songara S/o Narendra Singh Aged About 48
Years R/o House No. 34 Shikshak Colony Badnagar P.S. Badnagar
District Ujjain M P
... Petitioners
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
City Kotwali, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Akash Agrawal, Panel Lawyer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
. 09 09 .202 6
1. The petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section
528 of the BNSS with the prayer to quash order dated 02.05.2026,
passed by the learned Special Judge (under the Chhattisgarh
Protection of Depositor’s Interest Act), Raigarh (CG) (for short the “trial
Court”) in Special Criminal Case No.03/2021, by which, the application
of the petitioners filed under Section 348 of the BNSS, seeking cross-
examination/re-examination of witnesses, has been rejected.
2. In the present case by way of aforesaid application, the petitioners

2
intend to re-examine witness- Madan Singh Patel (PW-02) [whose
examination has not been concluded] and other witnesses, namely,
Vijay Kumar Nayak (PW-03) Mahendra Kumar Dilawar (PW-04),
Chaindas Mahant (PW-09), Kumari Jyoti Singh Sidar (PW-10) and
Baniya Ram Ratre (PW-11) [whose examination has been concluded]
on the ground that according to them some important questions could
not be raised/putforth before the said witnesses and, due to which, their
right is adversely affected. As such, it was prayed that an opportunity to
re-examine the witnesses namely, Vijay Kumar Nayak (PW-03)
Mahendra Kumar Dilawar (PW-04), Chaindas Mahant (PW-09), Kumari
Jyoti Singh Sidar (PW-10) and Baniya Ram Ratre (PW-11) and to cross-
examine witness- Madan Singh Patel (PW-02) be given to the
petitioners.
3. The learned trial Court by way of impugned order dated
02.05.2026 has rejected the said application by recording its findings
that all the witnesses have exclusively been examined/cross-examined
and the petitioners cannot fill up the lacunae, if any, arising out of the
questions put by them under the garb of application under Section 348
of the BNSS/Section 311 of the CrPC and, accordingly, it has rejected
the said application. Aggrieved, the aforesaid order has been assailed
by the petitioners in this revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the submission
made before the trial Court would submit that in absence of re-
examination of the said witnesses, their right to defence is adversely
affected which is against the paramount consideration under the

3
criminal law justice system that the accused should be given all the
opportunity to defend his case properly. He would further submit that the
learned trial Court without considering these aspects of the matter
mechanically rejected the same and would pray for allowing the CRMP.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the matter is
listed before the trial Court tomorrow (i.e. 10.09.2026) for recording of
the statements of the accused persons. As such, he prayed for
deferment of the proceedings before the learned trial Court.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the revision
and submits that from the copy of evidence submitted by the
applicants/accused it is quite vivid that opportunity to exclusively cross-
examine witness- Madan Singh Patel (PW-02) has already been
afforded and so far as other witnesses are concerned it is quite vivid
that no cross-examination has been done but it is on the petitioners,
who have submitted application before the learned trial Court for re-
examination, for which, they have not taken proper steps and not
utilized the opportunity which was available to them during the trial and
it is nothing but just a delaying tactics to keep the criminal trial pending.
Thus, it is prayed for rejection of the revision.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein above and went through the record.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering the fact that except witness- Madan Singh Patel (PW-02)
other all witnesses- namely, Vijay Kumar Nayak (PW-03) Mahendra

4
Kumar Dilawar (PW-04), Chaindas Mahant (PW-09), Kumari Jyoti Singh
Sidar (PW-10) and Baniya Ram Ratre (PW-11), have been extensively
examined and cross-examined, as such, under the garb of Section 348
of the BNSS/Section 311 of the CrPC the petitioners cannot be given
another opportunity to re-examine the witnesses and to fill-up the
lacuna as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Madhab
Chandra Pradhan & Ors. Vs. State of Odisha passed in Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10082 of 2024 and in case of The State of
Tripura Vs. Panna Ahmed reported in 2026 INSC 584, in which, in
paragraphs 16 & 17 it has been held as under:
"16. Secondly, the principal ground urged in support of the
application under Section 311 CrPC is that certain facts
arising from the CDRs of the relevant mobile numbers could
not be brought on record during the earlier cross-
examination due to inadvertence. However, it is an admitted
position that the said CDRs were filed by the prosecution
itself along with the charge-sheet and formed part of the
record throughout the course of the trial. The defence was
thus aware of the said material and had adequate
opportunity to examine the prosecutrix with reference
thereto. The power under Section 311 CrPC cannot be
exercised merely to fill up lacunae in the defence case.
17. Lastly, it is important to mention that the prosecutrix has
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 investigation and before the learned Magistrate under
Section 164 CrPC. Directing recall would inflict further and
unjustifiable hardship upon the prosecutrix. The witnesses
cannot be expected to face 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."

5
8. In light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I
am of the view that so far as rejection of applicants’ application for re-
examination of Vijay Kumar Nayak (PW-03) Mahendra Kumar Dilawar
(PW-04), Chaindas Mahant (PW-09), Kumari Jyoti Singh Sidar (PW-10)
and Baniya Ram Ratre (PW-11) is concerned, the same is legally
justified and it does not warrant any interference, but so far as cross-
examination of Madan Singh Patel (PW-02) is concerned, he was not
subjected to cross-examination and the order-sheet of the trial Court
clearly reflects that the Court hours was completed, then it was
incumbent upon the trial Court to see that the witness should be bound
over for the next appearance, which the trial Court miserably failed to do
and consequently it is a denial to the accused to cross-examine the said
witness. Therefore, for the mistake of the Court, the litigant should not
suffer and, as such, this Court is of the view that one opportunity is to
be granted to the petitioners/accused to cross-examine witness- Madan
Singh Patel (PW-02).
9. Accordingly, it is directed that recording of statements of accused
persons before the trial Court, which is fixed for tomorrow (i.e.
10.09.2026) shall be deferred for 01 month and the trial Court shall fix
the date of hearing of the matter on 10.09.2026 for issuing summon to
witness- Madan Singh Patel (PW-02) and, then, his evidence be
recorded on or before 07.10.2026 and, thereafter, the matter be fixed for
recording of statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of
CrPC/351 of BNSS.
10. It is also dircted that in case the prosecution does not intend to

6
rely upon the evidence of Madan Singh Patel (PW-02), his cross-
examination is not required it be ordered by the trial Court and will
proceed as per the proceedings fixed on 10.09.2026 itself and the trial
Court shall proceed as per the schedule given by it i.e. recording of
statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of CrPC/351 of
BNSS.
11. With aforesaid observation this revision is partly allowed .
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court as well
as to the State counsel for information and necessary action, if any.
13. Certified copy today.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
s@if