While setting aside an order permitting the recall of a rape survivor for further cross-examination, the Supreme Court, in The State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed [2026 INSC 584], observed that witnesses, particularly survivors of heinous crimes such as rape, should not be repeatedly subjected to the ordeal of cross-examination merely because of a change in defence counsel or an earlier oversight. The Court made this observation while considering the exercise of powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Court emphasized that the power under Section 311 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and with due regard to the psychological trauma that prolonged proceedings may inflict on victims.
The Court observed:
“…the prosecutrix has already been subjected to the ordeal of deposition and cross-examination on four separate occasions before the Trial Court, in addition to having her statement recorded during the investigation and before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. Directing her recall would inflict further and unjustifiable hardship upon the prosecutrix.”
The Court further noted that witnesses cannot be expected to repeatedly endure the burden of appearing before the court, particularly in sensitive cases.
Requiring victims of serious offences to appear again and again for cross-examination may cause undue hardship and further aggravate their trauma.
