The right of cross-examination is an essential facet of a fair trial and cannot be denied by imposing excessive costs.

The petitioner was accused in Spl. GR. No. 155 of 2024 for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 296, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 12 of the POCSO Act

During the trial, several witnesses (PW-3, 6, 9, and 10) were examined-in-chief, but cross-examination was declined due to the absence of the petitioner’s counsel

On 20.12.2025, the trial court allowed an application to recall these witnesses under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) but imposed costs of ₹200 for PW-3, 6, and 9, and ₹2,500 for PW-10 (the Investigating Officer)

The petitioner’s subsequent application to waive these costs was rejected on 02.01.2026

The petitioner challenged this refusal, arguing that the costs were excessive and hindered his right to a fair trial, particularly as the case was already posted for judgment

1. Whether the imposition of high costs for recalling a material witness (I.O.) effectively denied the accused his right to an essential facet of a fair trial

2. Whether the Court can exercise its power to recall witnesses under Section 348 of the BNSS even after the case has been posted for judgment

The court primarily applied Section 348 of the BNSS (analogous to Section 311 Cr.P.C.), which empowers the court to recall and re-examine any person if their evidence is essential to a just decision

The court relied on Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, establishing that the court's widest power to recall witnesses must be exercised to ensure a "just decision" and to find the truth

The court applied the principle from Selvi J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka, asserting that the right to a fair trial, including cross-examination, is a fundamental human right under Article 21 of the Constitution

The High Court observed that while the petitioner had attempted to delay the trial with multiple applications, the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is a substantive right essential to justice

The court found that PW-10 (the Investigating Officer) is a material witness who had never been cross-examined by the defense

The Court reasoned that imposing a high cost of ₹2,500 for recalling the I.O. acted as a barrier to the petitioner's defense, resulting in a potential miscarriage of justice

Although the trial had reached the judgment stage, the Court held that Section 348 BNSS allows for the recall of witnesses at any stage if it is necessary for a "just decision"

The Court concluded that in the interest of balancing the victim's rights with the accused's right to a fair trial, the costs should be made reasonable to facilitate the cross-examination

The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a total of ₹800 by 08.05.2026, upon which the trial court must summon the witnesses for cross-examination. If the witnesses are examined, the parties shall be granted one further opportunity for argument before the pronouncement of judgment