CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 09 MP CK 1063

Sunil vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench · Decided on 23 September 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gajendra Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 4468 Of 2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 349 words

Gajendra Singh, J

1.

This criminal revision under section 438 r/w section442 of the BNSS, 2023 is preferred challenging the legality of the order dated 04.09.2025 whereby the application under section 348 of the BNSS, 2023 preferred by the revision petitioner/accused has been rejected.

2.

Facts in brief are that the revision petitioner/accused was facing trial for the charges under sections 64, 79 and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 and the prosecutrix was examined as PW/1 on 08.01.2025. Her husband was examined as PW/2 on 16.05.2025 and her sister in law was examined as PW/3 on 16.05.2025.

3.

An application for recalling and further cross examining those witnesses was preferred on 21.08.2025 on the ground that the prosecutrix (PW/1) could not be cross examined regarding the conversation on Instagram account and Whatsapp chat and the concerned video could not be exhibited during cross examination of prosecutrix PW/1 and PW/2 and PW/2 could not be cross examined due to ignorance of law of the revision petitioner and the counsel was not intimated regarding the material facts so he was unable to cross examine them.

4.

The trial court rejected the application recording the finding that the revision petitioner/accused was represented by competent counsel. The ignorance of law of the accused is not a ground for recalling and granting permission to reexamine the witnesses when the accused is being represented by a competent lawyer. They were duly granted opportunity to cross examine them.

5.

Heard.

6.

Perused the statement of prosecutrix (PW/1), her husband (PW/2) and her sister in law (PW/3). In para-6 of the cross examination of PW/1 exhaustive cross examination is recorded on the points raised in the revision petition and they secured certain admission. Witnesses No.2 & 3 are witnesses who claim that they got the knowledge of the incident only from the witness no.1. The only ground that appears is that after change of counsel, such application has been preferred and this is not a ground to allow the application under section 348 of the BNSS, 2023. Hence, this revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.