Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Pidika Sambaru vs State Of Odisha And Anr. .... Opp. ... on 4 March, 2022

Churavan Das Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 May, 2022

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the right of an accused to recall the witness u/s 311 CrPC cannot always be denied only because there exists a right of prosecutrix u/s 33(5) of the POCSO Act. He refers to a recent decision of the Orissa High Court rendered in Crl. Rev.No. 439 of 2021 (Pidika Sambaru v. State of 3 Odisha) 2022 Livelaw (Ori) 21 and submits that it is mandatory for a court to recall witness for further examination if his/her evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the Court, therefore, there is no bar for a Court to recall the witness for further examination.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinod Rawat vs State on 20 September, 2022

20. The Orissa High Court in Pidika Sambaru v. State of Odisha & Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 802 while reiterating the observations of this Court in Vimal Khanna (supra) and Mohd. Gulzar (supra) ordered recalling of the witnesses on the ground that non-cross-examination of the witnesses would put the petitioner in prejudice. Similar view was CRL.M.C. 4584/2022 Page 10 of 11 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Sri Gude Venkateswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 July, 2024

v) The decision in Pidikiti Sambaru (supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for the Petitioners is a case where the accused was in custody, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and the defence counsel failed to cross-examine the said witness, after release of the accused, he engaged another Advocate, filed recall petition and the said Petition was dismissed on the point that there is a bar under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act. In that context, the Court held that the intention and object behind enacting Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act is only to ensure that in a genuine case the child victim is not harassed, but cannot be used as a shield by the trial Court to deprive the accused of a right of proper cross-examination and therefore a right of fair trial.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Ganeshan vs State Represented By on 7 March, 2022

5. Learned counsel would further undertake that the petitioner is prepared to pay necessary cost for appearance of the witnesses and that the petitioner undertakes to cross-examine the witnesses on the same day of their appearance before the Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in Crl.Rev.No.490 of 2021 dated 04.03.2022. (In the case of Pidika Sambaru Vs State of Odisha and Another).
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A D Chandira - Full Document
1   2 Next