JUDGMENT : S. K. Sahoo, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Bhaju @ Bhajamohan Das for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2016 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Track Court, Bhadrak in S.T.Case No. 27/127 of 2014 under Annexure-4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed the certified copies of the depositions of the witnesses which are taken on record. As it appears the petitioner is facing a trial under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and victim was examined by the prosecution as P.W.1 on 21.04.2015 and on that day, she was cross examined by the defence counsel and discharged. Thereafter, number of witnesses were examined and the father of the victim namely Prafulla Mallik was examined as P.W.5 on 11.05.2016 and he stated that he did not know anything about the occurrence and there was marriage proposal pending between the victim and the petitioner. An application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on the very day i.e. 11.05.2016 by the defence for recalling P.W.1 to confront the statements made by the P.W.5 which was turned down by the learned Trial Court on the ground that there was no need for further cross-examination of P.W.1 and the intention of defence appears to linger the proceeding. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the father of the victim has stated in a different manner, it is required that the statement of the father should be confronted to the victim and therefore, the recall petition should have been allowed in the interest of justice and for the just decision of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the petition under section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner to recall P.W. 1 for further cross examination. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and on going through the evidence of P.W. 1, I find that the defence has been provided with ample opportunity for cross examining P.W.1 and in fact the defence has cross examined the victim thoroughly. She has also stated about the marriage proposal given by the petitioner to her. She has also stated about the marriage proposal given by the petitioner to her. Merely because one witness has stated in a different manner, that cannot be a ground to recall P.W.1 to confront such statement. The statement of a particular witness given earlier before the police or before the Magistrate can be utilized for confrontation and not the statement of a third witness. 7. What would be the evidentiary value of the statements of these witnesses i.e. P.W.1 & P.W.5, the same would be decided at the appropriate stage of trial. 8. At this stage, I am not inclined to accept the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed. 9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be given an opportunity to file a specific questionnaire with another application under section 311 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court to recall P.W.1 to put such questions only. If any such application is filed, the same shall be disposed by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law on which this Court is expressing no opinion. Final Result : Dismissed