Power under Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses is wide, exercisable at any stage if essential for just decision; prosecutorial oversight in not showing material objects earlier is correctable, not lacuna; duty to obtain medical opinion on weapon causation.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the order dated 7.11.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the application for recalling the witnesses Dr Sangeet Dhillon (PW17) and Naseeb Singh Patial (PW41) was allowed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police have filed a charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 353, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The matter was listed for arguments on 3.5.2025. The arguments were partly addressed on that day, and the matter was adjourned for further arguments, when the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling Dr. Sangeet Dhillon (PW17) and Naseeb Singh Patial (PW41), claiming that the bullet and the revolver could not be shown to them due to the oversight. The application was opposed by the accused but was allowed by the learned Trial Court after holding that the evidence sought to be adduced was material and necessary for arriving at a just decision of the case.

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court passed a cryptic and non-speaking order. It was not explained how showing of the already exhibited bullets and revolver would be material in the adjudication of the matter. The Court failed to analyse what specific evidence would emerge from the re-examination of the witnesses, why the evidence was indispensable, and how the justice would be defeated without such re-examination. The jurisdiction under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The prosecution failed to explain the delay of 26 months from the examination of PW17 and 15 months from the examination of PW41. The application was an attempt to fill-up the lacuna left by the prosecution. Allowing the application would cause a grave prejudice to the accused and would deprive him of his right to a speedy trial. The order violates the fair trial and causes grave prejudice to the accused. No new circumstances justifying the recall of the witnesses were specified. There is no ambiguity in the evidence of the witnesses justifying their recall. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set-aside.

4. I have heard Mr Rajiv Jiwan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by M/s Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Yug Singhal and Annanya Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Rajiv Jiwan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application. No cogent reasons were assigned to allow the application. The order is cryptic and mentions that the examination of the witnesses is material; however, it was no