POCSO victims cannot be recalled for re-examination based on subsequent extra-judicial claims after thorough cross-examination.

The applicant was charged under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The victim (PW-1) was examined and cross-examined at length by the defense on 18.10.2024

On 07.02.2026, the applicant filed an application under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (analogous to Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.), seeking to recall the victim for re-cross-examination

The applicant claimed that an Instagram chat dated 29.09.2025 revealed the victim admitted to filing a false report under familial pressure and financial greed

The trial court rejected this application on 12.02.2026, prompting the present revision petition

1. Whether the trial court committed a grave illegality by rejecting the application for recall and re-cross-examination of the victim under Section 348 of the BNSS

2. Whether the mandate of Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act regarding the repeated testimony of child victims outweighs the discretionary power to recall witnesses

Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the court to summon or recall witnesses if their evidence is essential to a just decision

Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, 2012, which mandates that Special Courts ensure child victims are not called repeatedly to testify

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Madhab Chandra Pradhan Ors. v. State of Odisha (2024), which held that mechanical recall of victims in POCSO trials defeats the statute's purpose

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav (2016), which established that recall cannot be granted for mere convenience or to address alleged deficiencies in prior cross-examinations, especially in sensitive cases

The court observed that the defense had already been afforded a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the victim on 18.10.2024.

It noted a significant delay of approximately four and a half months between the alleged Instagram chat (September 2025) and the filing of the application (February 2026).

The court highlighted that the trial had reached the final stage of defense evidence.

Applying the principles from Shiv Kumar Yadav, the court reasoned that witnesses should not face the hardship of appearing repeatedly in sensitive cases.

The court concluded that recalling the victim was not essential for a just decision and that the application appeared to be a tactic to deliberately delay the trial.

It affirmed that the interests of justice and the protections afforded to child witnesses under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act justified the refusal to recall the victim for further cross-examination.

The petition was dismissed at the motion stage.