The main legal point established in the judgment is the judicious exercise of the power to summon or recall witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and the significance of fair trial.

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. Petitioner Deepak Kumar is facing trial, in relation to the charged offences, punishable under the provisions of Sections 147 of the Indian Penal Code and 302, 341, 506-II read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, on 2.7.2012, petitioner alongwith his co-accused murdered Surjit Singh, in relation to which FIR No. 47, dated 3.7.2012, registered at Police Station Bhaba Nagar/Nichar, District Kinnaur.

2. Record reveals that charges were framed on 4.5.2013 and between 4.7.2013 and 21.1.2014, statements of 23 prosecution witnesses were recorded on different dates. During trial, on 20.1.2014, petitioner moved an application (Annexure P-2), praying for recall of material witnesses Shyam Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Singh (PW-16), Bahardeen (PW-18) & Sanjay Kumar (PW-19), for re-examination. Prosecution resisted the application.

3. Vide impugned order dated 2.5.2014, trial Court dismissed the same, which stands assailed in this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. For proper determination of the issue in question, reproduction of contents of the application, in to would be fruitful. It reads thus:-

"(1) That the case is fixed for examination of remaining prosecution witness/witnesses.

(2) That the accused Deepak is alleged to be at crime scene s per the PW 16, 18 and 19 but he is not resident of this place/village where the alleged incident took place.

(3) That secondly the above prosecution witnesses has made different statements from their recorded statements and they have resiled from the previous statement but interestingly they had not been declared hostile as per law. This has resulted into the fact that core questions has not been put to them inadvertently.

(4) That the applicant seek to recall the PW. 16, 18, 19 to put them specific questions about the fact of identification, presence and role of Deepak in the alleged crime. The motive of alleged crime and actual defense of the accused has remained to be put to the witnesses.

(5) That the prosecution witnesses has concealed the real facts from the Ld. Court during their cross examination. The mystery about a particular time of the evening of the alleged crime has remained a mystery. The presence of immediate office and residence of Patwari and residents of adjoining houses has remained un-asked to these witnesses.

(6) That going by the seriousness of the offence/allegations the witnesses are sought to be recalled as not putting the core questions to these witnesses shall prejudice the case of the applicant/accused.

(7) That recall and cross-examination of the applicant is essential for just decision of the case. It shall promote the cause of justice and shall provide applicant reasonable opportunity to defend his case.

(8) That the principles of fair trail and opportunities also call for recall of the PW 16, 18 and 19 as they have projected themselves as eye witnesses. Admittedly Investigation agency has roped in only highly interested witnesses irrespective of the fact that they will support their sides to the hilt. So absence of independent witnesses also needs a detailed cross examination of the above witnesses by the applicant, who feel himself to be scapegoat.

It is therefore, prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and the PW 16, 18, 19 may kindly be recalled for putting them specific questions as above referred, in the larger interests of justice and fair trial of the case."

5. Prosecution resisted the same, inter alia, on the ground that there is neither any ambiguity in the testimony of the witnesses nor has there been procedural lapse, entitling the petitioner for the relief claimed for. Also, petitioner is trying to fill in the lacuna, if any, and also delay the trial.

6. Significantly, before the Court below, during the hearing of the application, all pleaded grounds were given up and only change of counsel was the rea