IMPORTANT POINT
The power under Section 311 CrPC should be exercised for the just decision of the case, and the evidence sought to be adduced must be essential, requiring judicial discretion.

ORDER

K Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 08.02.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.168 of 2024 in S.C. No.63 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

2. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kurnool filed a charge sheet as against 2nd respondent/A.1 and another, and the same was taken on file as S.C.No.63 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The Sessions Case is at the stage of arguments. At that stage, State filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.168 of 2024 in the said Sessions Case, under Section 311 CrPC seeking to recall P.W.4-Dr.Allam Vasanth Kumar, P.W.7-Dr.S.Narasimha Reddy and P.W.17-D.V.Ramana Moorthy for further examination for the purpose of marking documents on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order, dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Petition is preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that 2nd respondent/A.1 is charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 494 IPC for committing murder of his wife; that during the course of trial, certain important documents could not be marked through the prosecution witnesses; that P.Ws.4 and 7 are Doctors, who issued medical certificates dated 14.03.2015 and 30.03.2015 respectively, and for the purpose of marking those documents, which is germane for establishing the case of prosecution, recalling of P.Ws.4 and 7 is necessary. He further submitted that on a letter addressed by P.W.17-investigating officer to the Mandal Educational Officer, Holagunda mandal (L.W.12), employment details of Smt.B.Parvathi, second wife of 2nd respondent/A.1, and her Aadhar card were secured and marking of those documents is necessary to establish the relationship between them as wife and husband.

It is his submission that the power under Section 311 CrPC can be exercised at any stage if the evidence which may be proposed to be tendered by a witness is germane to the issue involved and to for a just decision of the case, and that the learned Sessions Judge erred in observing that purpose of establishing relationship between them is no longer required and erred in dismissing the petition filed by the prosecution.

4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent-State too concurred with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy appearing for learned counsel for 2nd respondent contended that at the time of examination of P.W.4, the medical certificate dated 14.03.2015 was confronted to him and the Court refused to mark the said certificate during trial as it is hit by Section 162 CrPC. The learned senior counsel further submits that the other medical certificate dated 14.03.2015 is not issued based on public record and P.W.4 is not a public servant, and that P.W.7 deposed in his examination-in-chief that he had no knowledge about contents of the said medical certificate. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that P.W.17 had already deposed in his examination-in-chief about the Service Register and Aadhar card, and earlier P.W.17 was recalled at the instance of the prosecution at the stage of Section 313 CrPC examination of the accused, and hence, there are no grounds to recall the aforesaid witnesses, and the learned Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

6. Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is correct, legal and proper and whether there are any grounds to recall P.Ws.4, 7 and 17 ?

7. In the case on hand, a charge sheet was filed against 2nd respondent/A.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 494 IPC, and the same was taken on file as S.C.No.63 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The deceased Vishali is wife of 2nd respondent/A.1. At the