Section 311 of the Code mandates courts to allow recalling witnesses if essential for achieving a just decision, reflecting the right to a fair trial.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 and Section 311 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 354A, 323, 506 - Petition filed against trial court's dismissal of an application for recalling witnesses for further cross-examination. Court ruled that such powers under Section 311 are to be exercised judiciously for just resolution, ensuring the accused's right to fair trial is preserved. (Para 14)

(B) Right to Fair Trial - The trial court must allow further opportunities for cross-examination if essential for justice, regardless of previous opportunities granted. It cannot reject applications solely based on timing without considering the case's merits. (Paras 12 & 14)

Facts of the case:
The accused sought to recall the complainant and the Investigating Officer for further examination based on new information obtained through RTI applications. The trial court initially dismissed this application, ruling ample opportunities had already been given.

Findings of Court:
The dismissal of the application was found inappropriate; the accused’s right to a fair trial warranted a new opportunity for cross-examination.

Issues: Whether the trial court correctly applied Section 311 in denying the application for recalling witnesses, considering the right to a fair trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that Section 311 must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, ensuring that justice prevails and that the accused's opportunity for a fair defense is not compromised.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and fir details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's request for further cross-examination. (Para 3 , 4)
3. grounds of appeal against the trial court's decision. (Para 5)
4. discussion on the powers under section 311 cr.p.c. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
5. principles regarding the application of section 311. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
6. court's decision on the petitioner's rights. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
7. conclusion and directives from the court. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.

1. The present petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 ( hereinafter referred as "Cr.P.C.") against the impugned order dated 16.02.2019 passed by the court of Ms. Sonam Singh, MM (Mahila Court) Central, Tis Hazari, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as "Trial Court") in case titled as State V Umesh Yadav arising out of FIR bearing No. 0011/2014 registered at P.S. Timarpur under sections 354/354A/323/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").

2. The perusal of FIR bearing No. 0011/2014 dated 11.01.2014 reflects that it was registered under sections 354/354A/323/506 IPC on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant "P" pertaining to the incident happened on 11.01.2014. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under sections 354/354A/323/506 IPC and the trial was stated to be pending in the Court of Ms. Deepika Singh, MM, Tis Hazari Courts/Successor Court.

3. The petitioner during the trial filed an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-1 i.e. the complainant "P" and PW-7 "IO SI Surender" who was the Investigating Officer for their further cross-examination. It was mentioned in the application that the petitioner preferred an RTI application dated 27.07.2016 seeking details of the calls made from mobile bearing number 8750119038 phone belonging to the complainant/PW-1 "P" made between 10.01.2014 and 11.01.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner received an Intimation from the RTI Cell vide letter dated 19.08.2016 which was lost by the petitioner. The petitioner also changed his counsel to whom he apprised about misplacing of the letter dated 19.08.2016.

Thereafter the petitioner filed another RTI application on 30.07.2018 seeking necessary information and in pursuance of said application, a response dated 28.08.2018 was sent to the petitioner. It is further stated by the petitioner that upon perusal of response dated 28.08.2018, it is reflected that no PCR call was made by the complainant/PW-1 "P" against the petitioner. On the basis of these letters/responses, the petitioner prayed for recalling of PW-1 and PW-7 for their further cross-examination to ensure the fair trial.

4. The application under section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2019 by the Court of Ms. Sonam Singh, MM, Mahila Court-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Court by observing:

Perusal of record reveals that the complainant was cross examined at length on 25.01.2016 and PW -7 IO SI Surender was cross-examined also at length on 19.09.2018. Hence, it is apparent that the accused has been given ample opportunities to cross examine the complainant and IO. The accused had knowledge of the alleged PCR calls, since 27.07.2016, when he made the first RTI application yet till 05.11.2018, no application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed. The present application which has been filed after more than two years, is devoid of merits. Only because, the record/documents of the accused were lost, or are contradictory to previous response, it cannot be a ground to scuttle the procedure of the court by recalling the witnesses. It is settled law that the court can exercise its power under Section 311 Cr. PC only for strong and valid reasons and the said power is to be exercised with great caution and circumspection. Allowing the said application, which has been moved at the stage of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC, would derail the entire trial.

Hence,