1. Application for examination of a witness under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the recording of the statement of the accused. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 661
A.M. AHMADI, C.J.I. AND M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
S.R. SINHA — APPELLANT
Versus
MRINAL SENGUPTA AND OTHERS — RESPONDENTS
Criminal Appeal No. ... of 1996
Decided on : March 25, 1996
Under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, witnesses may be recalled or examined even after the accused's statement is recorded if the interest of justice requires it, as mere inconvenience of recalling witnesses is not a valid ground for refusal.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 311 - Examination or recall of witness - No bar against the examination of a witness even at a stage subsequent to the recording of the statement of the accused - If the interest of justice so demands, the inconvenience caused by recalling witnesses for cross-examination should not be a ground to refrain from recalling or examining a witness to ensure no prejudice is caused to the accused. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A request was made to recall or examine a witness at a stage subsequent to the recording of the statement of the accused. The court below refused the prayer on the grounds that the request was made at a belated stage and would cause prejudice to the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there is no legal bar against examining a witness after the accused's statement has been recorded. The mere inconvenience of recalling witnesses for cross-examination cannot override the interest of justice, and such inconvenience is not a sufficient ground to refuse the examination of a witness.
Issues: Whether the power under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code to recall or examine a witness can be exercised after the recording of the statement of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to recall or examine a witness under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code is available even after the accused's statement is recorded if the interest of justice demands it; any potential prejudice to the accused can be mitigated by allowing cross-examination.
Result: Impugned order set aside and matter remanded for further proceedings.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether recalling a witness at a belated stage causes undue prejudice to the accused or suggests prosecution bias. (Para 2 )
3. Inconvenience caused by recalling witnesses for cross-examination should not preclude their examination if the interest of justice so demands. (Para 2 )
4. Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits witness examination after the accused's statement if necessary for the interest of justice. (Para 2 )
5. Impugned orders set aside and matter remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Can a witness be examined under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the accused's statement has been recorded?
Yes, there is no legal bar against the examination of a witness even at a stage subsequent to the recording of the statement of the accused in exercise of power under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (Para 2 )
7. Does the potential for prejudice or inconvenience to the accused justify refusing to recall a witness?
No. If the interest of justice demands it, the inconvenience of recalling witnesses for cross-examination to ensure no prejudice is caused to the accused should not be a ground to refrain from recalling or examining a witness. (Para 2 )
8. How can the court ensure that recalling a witness at a belated stage does not prejudice the accused?
The court can ensure that no prejudice is caused to the accused persons by allowing the recalled witnesses to be subjected to cross-examination. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. It is difficult to appreciate the approach of the High Court in the revision application for the reason that there is no bar against the examination of a witness even at a stage subsequent to the recording of the statement of the accused in exercise of power under Section 311 of the Criminal 9 Procedure Code. This fact is recognised in para 4 of the impugned order.
However, the reason why the learned Judge refused the prayer was that it would require the recalling of the witness at a belated stage and that would cause prejudice to the accused person. What is important is that if the interest of justice so demands and a witness is required to be recalled or even a court witness is required to be examined, the inconvenience that may be caused of recalling witnesses, for cross-examination, if that becomes necessary in order to ensure that there is no prejudice caused to the accused persons, should not by itself be a ground to refrain from recalling the witness or examining a witness. The observation of the learned Judge that it gives the impression as if the prosecution is tilting in favour of one party at the cost of the other, does not seem to be wholly justified. There is no question of suspecting the prosecution or the fairness of the learned public prosecutor.
3. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order as well as the order of the first court and assign the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala to take further proceedings in the light of what we have said above.
4. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly.
