Section 311 of CrPC empowers courts to summon or recall witnesses if it is essential for achieving a just decision, emphasizing the balance between the rights of the accused and the pursuit of truth.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner/complainant has challenged order passed below Exh.226 by learned Sessions Judge at Washim in Sessions Trial No.70/2012 whereby the application filed by prosecution under Section 311 of the CrPC has been partly allowed by recalling of the witnesses.

2. Heard learned counsel Shri U.J.Deshpande for the petitioner/complainant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri V.A.Thakare for the State, and learned counsel Shri Shyam Dewani for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Rule. Heard finally by consent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the petitioner/complainant lodged a report against the accused persons alleging that they caused death of his son due to the previous enmity. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed and the prosecution has examined as many as 42 witnesses. The prosecution has filed application below Exh.226 under Section 311 of the CrPC for recalling of witnesses Gajanan Thakre, Vasant Kalambkar, Shrikrishna Joshi, Balu Ingle, and Baban Ghuge. The said application was strongly opposed by the accused persons on the ground that the investigating officer is already examined and without any good and valid reason, on non- examination of those witnesses, now, the application is filed by the prosecution to prolong the matter. After hearing both the sides, learned Sessions Judge allowed the application partly on the ground that the prosecution has not given specific reason for recording evidence of Vasant Kalambkar, who is not cited as witness in chargesheet, and Baban Ghuge, who is already examined.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant on the ground that witness namely Vasant Kalambkar, being Motor Vehicle Inspector, is important witness to be examined to prove case of the prosecution since the entire story of the prosecution revolves around vehicle viz. Gypsy from which dead body of the deceased was recovered in doubtful circumstances and, therefore, examination of said Motor Vehicle Inspector is required for just decision of the case.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, endorsed the said contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The allegations against the accused persons are that the deceased died as his vehicle was dashed by another vehicle. During investigation, it revealed that there was business rivalry between the accused persons and the deceased and on that count, the deceased was eliminated. Thereafter, to screen themselves from the punishment, the vehicle was set on fire. The said vehicle is owned by one of accused persons. During investigation, the vehicle was examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and report is on record. For just decision of the case, examination of said witness Vasant Kalambkar, being Motor Vehicle Inspector, is required as he is an important witness.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed an intervention application and challenged maintainability of the writ petition as alternate remedy is available. The another ground raised is that the sessions trial is pending since 2012. However, by the order of this court, the trial is already expedited. Filing of this writ petition, is nothing but tactics to prolong the matter. In view of that, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 placed reliance on following decisions:

1. Rajendra Diwan vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala and Another , (2019) 2