In criminal trials, parties can be allowed to recall witnesses for the limited purpose of correcting errors, especially in cases involving grave charges and peculiar circumstances.

Heard Shri Nawab, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Jichkar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent.

2. Rule. By consent of parties heard forthwith.

3. By this application under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant who is accused in Sessions Trial No. 409/98 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur takes exception to order dated 7-2-2008 by which the application filed by the applicant for recalling of witness, Head Constable, Rajesli Gautam, PW-8, has been rejected by the trial Court.

4. The applicant is facing trial, under section 302 of Indian Penal Code before the trial Court. It is the case of the applicant that he did not put certain contradictions and omissions to PW-8 Rajesh Gautam, whose evidence was recorded since his counsel believed that the statements of P.W.I, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were recorded by P.S.I. Shri S.T. Patil who was not examined in the said case. The applicant, therefore, moved above application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling of P.W.8 Rajesh Gautam, only for a limited purpose of putting contradictions and omissions vis-a-vis statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. The trial Court has rejected this application.

5. In support of the application, Mr. Nawab placed reliance upon Judgment of Apex Court in Rajendra Prasad VS. Narcotic Cell, 1999 SCC (Cri) 1062, and submitted that since the counsel appearing for the applicant before the trial Court was under wrong impression that the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were recorded by P.S.I. Shri Patil, he did not prove these contradictions and omissions by putting them to Rajesh P.W.8. He therefore, submitted that it would be in the interest of justice to recall PW-8 Rajesh Gautam only for the limited purpose of proving contradictions and omissions. He further submitted that the applicant is facing a grave charge of murder and, therefore, in the event, PW-8 Rajesh Gautam is not recalled, grave injustice would be caused to the applicant.

6. Per contra, Mr. Jichkar, learned A.P.P. supported the impugned order.

7. No doubt, in criminal trial neither the prosecution nor the defence is entitled to recall witness at its own sweet will. However, the fact remains that in the present case, it is the case of the applicant that on account of wrong impression carried by the learned Advocate for the applicant that statements of three witnesses P.W.I, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were not recorded by PW-8 Rajesh Gautam, material contradictions and omissions vis-a-vis the statement of three witnesses were not put to Rajesh Gautam. Moreover, the applicant is facing a grave charge of murder. Therefore, in my opinion, Mr. Nawab is right in placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Rajendra Prasad VS. Narcotic Cell case (supra) in which the Apex Court has held that no party in trial can be foreclosed Irom correcting errors. Having regard to the nature of the charge against the applicant and peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case in which the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the applicant must be given an opportunity only to put contradictions and omissions vis-a-vis statements ofP.W.I, P.W.2 and P.W.3 to P.W.8 Rajesh Gatuam.

8. For the reasons aforesaid, the application is allowed and impugned order dated 7-2-2008 is quashed and set aside. The prayer for the applicant for recalling of P.W.8 is allowed for the limited extent of putting the contradictions and omissions vis-a-vis statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1500/- (Rs One thousand five hundred only) in favour of the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur within a period of one week from today.

9. I have been informed that the matter is fixed for final arguments. The trial Court shall recall P.W.8 Rajesh Gautam and permit the applicant to put only contradictions and omissions vis-a-vis statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and thereafter, proceed to