IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair trial and the duty of the court to discover the truth, which may require allowing the recall of witnesses for further cross-examination in certain circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in S.T. No.148 of 2018 arising out of Mandu P.S. Case No.38 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.208 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120 B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code; by which the petition filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Misc. Case being MCA No.05 of 2023, by the petitioner who is the accused in the said case, was rejected by the Sessions Judge.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners are the accused persons of the said case and are facing the said trial inter alia allegedly for having committed the murder of Ful Kumari. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Undisputedly, the P.W.10 and P.W.11 are the two Investigating Officers of the case who have conducted different parts of the investigation of the case. After examination of P.W.10 and P.W.11 as witnesses in the said trial, the P.W.13 produced and proved material exhibits marked as Ext. (I) to (IX), which were seized by the P.W.11. As at the time of examination of the P.W.10 and P.W.11 in court, the material exhibits, which have later been marked as Ext. (I) to (IX) were not in the court, hence, the petitioners could not put relevant questions in the cross-examination of P.W.10 and P.W.11. Hence, they prayed to recall P.W.10 and P.W.11 for further cross-examination in respect of the material exhibits marked as Ext. (I) to Ext. (IX), by the said petition filed under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order found that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed when the prosecution evidence was closed and the case was fixed for recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused persons of the case. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the P.W.10- Bidyawati Kumari Ohdar has not seized any material exhibit in connection with the crime and she has just sent the finger prints collected by the previous investigating officer for forensic examination after taking sample of finger prints of the accused persons. The Sessions Judge has observed regarding the P.W.11 that P.W.11 collected several material exhibits from the place of occurrence; apart from collecting the finger prints after developing the same with the help of Sub Inspector- Ashok Kumar. The P.W.11 has also collected certain material exhibits on the basis of confessional statement of the accused and detailed cross-examination of the P.W.11 has been done including the pointed questions regarding the seized material exhibits and as in the application, no specific point as to which question is to be asked from the P.W.11 has been mentioned, hence, the learned Sessions Judge did not find it proper to recall the witnesses being P.W.10 and P.W.11 for their further cross-examination and rejected the petition.

5. Mr. Pratik Sen-learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. and their names have transpired during the course of investigation only. It is next submitted that as the entire case of the prosecution, is based on circumstantial evidence; the petitioners will be prejudiced unless they are permitted to further cross-examine the P.W.10 and P.W.11 subsequent to whose discharge as witnesses after cross-examination, the material exhibits marked as (I) to (IX) have been proved by the prosecution. Mr. Sen relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 SCC 56 paragraphs-19 to 23 of which read as under:-

“19. The nature and extent of the power vested in the courts under Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses was examined by this Court in Hanuman Ram v. State of Ra