The rejection of a request to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC is valid when it is deemed an attempt to prolong proceedings without just cause, emphasizing the need for fair trial principles.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 27/06/2025, passed in Special POCSO Case No. 29/2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Chandrapur, whereby the application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling certain prosecution witnesses was rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that:

The prosecution case arises from an incident reported on 06/04/2019, when the informant received a phone call from the Warden of the Girls Hostel at Infant Jesus Public School, Rajura, District Chandrapur, informing that two girls from the hostel were unwell. The informant visited the hospital and found that the girls were receiving treatment and complained of dizziness. Subsequently, a letter was received from the Principal of the said school stating that the girls had been referred to the Government Hospital, Chandrapur.

4. On 12/04/2019, the medical reports indicated possible sexual abuse, prompting the informant to lodge a report against unknown persons. During investigation, the victim girls disclosed incidents implicating several persons including the present petitioners. Accordingly, offence was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013. The petitioners were arrested on 16/04/2019 and are under trial prisoners since then. The investigation culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet on 08/06/2019, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Evidence of prosecution witnesses was recorded, and the matter proceeded to the stage of recording statements under Section 313 CrPC. While preparing for the final arguments, the defence counsel noticed certain contradictions in the evidence of PW 61 (Dr. Rahul Bhongale) with which PW 76 was not confronted (Investigating Officer) and similarly there were contradictions in the evidence of PW 65 regarding which PW 20 was not confronted, due to an oversight. An application was therefore filed under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of these witnesses for limited cross- examination, which came to be rejected by the trial court on 27/06/2025. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction, seeking limited recall of the witnesses to confront them with material contradictions for the purpose of fair adjudication of the case.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in order to ensure a fair trial, it is necessary to cross-examine P.W.-76, as there are material contradictions in the cross- examination of P.W.-61 regarding which P.W.-76 was not confronted by the counsel for the accused. He further submits that, due to inadvertence on the part of the counsel, these contradictions were not brought on record. Accordingly, it is urged that P.W.-76 be recalled for this purpose. The learned counsel also submits that P.W.-20 was examined before P.W.-65. He further submits that these two witnesses deposed contradictorily to each other, and therefore, it is necessary to recall P.W.-20 for cross-examination as well. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2013) 14 SCC 461, and also in the case of State Vs. N.Seenivasagan, (2021) 14 SCC 1.

6. On the other hand, th