Can’t recall trafficking victims for cross-examination repeatedly: HC

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has set aside a trial court order permitting the recall of a trafficking victim for further cross-examination, holding that such a step cannot be taken mechanically or without recording cogent and tangible reasons.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, allowing a criminal revision filed by the victim herself, ruled that the power to recall a witness under Section 311 of the CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, particularly in sensitive cases involving sexual exploitation and trafficking.

The case relates to allegations of human trafficking for immoral purposes, in which the victim was allegedly procured for commercial sexual exploitation and sold for money. Following a complaint lodged by her mother after she went missing in January 2023, police investigated the matter and filed a chargesheet under multiple provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act against six accused. Charges were framed and the trial commenced thereafter.

The victim deposed as the first prosecution witness. Her examination-in-chief was conducted over two dates, and her cross-examination concluded on March 15, 2024. Nearly five months later, one of the accused moved an application seeking recall of the victim, contending that a junior advocate had failed to put certain vital questions during cross-examination. The trial court allowed the plea on August 13, 2024. Examining the record, the court noted that the accused had already been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the victim and had not sought further time when the evidence was being recorded.

The court observed that the recall application was filed long after the conclusion of evidence and that the trial court order didn’t disclose any reasoning explaining why recall of the victim was essential for a just decision. The High Court reiterated that recall of a witness cannot be permitted to fill gaps in the defence or to delay the trial. Holding that no cogent or tangible grounds were made out to justify recalling the victim after a significant lapse of time, the court set aside the impugned order and allowed the revision.