The power under Section 311, Cr.P.C. should be exercised with restraint and caution, especially at the final stage of the trial, and delay in filing the application may impact the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of rejectiondated 19.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi in S.T. Case No.36 of 2018 with regard to recall of P.W.24 for further cross-examination, the instant application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the aforesaid order.

2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present case is that the prosecution was set to motion on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 23.09.2018 and as revealed from the F.I.R., the marriage of the sister of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner Purna Chandra Das as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 22.05.2013. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs) along with household articles were given as dowry. After the marriage, the sister of the informant and her husband led a normal conjugal life and after passage of time, the petitioner along with her family members started torturing and assaulting deceased-Madhusmita Das by demanding more dowry. On 22.09.2017 at about 3.00 P.M., the informant received a call from the deceased that her life is in danger and on the very same day, the petitioner informed over phone that his sister has expired. Accordingly, the F.I.R. has been lodged suspecting the murder of the deceased.

3. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 498-A/302/304(B)/406/34, I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and cognizance was taken and the matter was committed to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parakhemundi pursuant to which S.T. Case No.36 of 2018 was instituted on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi. After the commencement of trial, prosecution examined all the witnesses including P.W.24 and the defence has also crossexamined him, but due to paucity of time some important contradictions could not be confronted to him. A petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C. has been filed making out a questionnaire which were to be put to P.W.24 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi by order dated 19.01.2021 has passed the impugned order rejecting the petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 on the ground that the order impugned is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probability of the case. He further submitted that the trial court has committed gross irregularity in law in rejecting the application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel also submitted that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, the same will not only cause irreparable injury to the petitioner but it will be abuse the process of the court. Learned counsel further submitted that the object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record and leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined by either side. The determining factor is whether it is essential for just decision of the case. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision rendered in the case of Natasha Singh vrs. C.B.I. reported in (2013) 55 OCR Supreme Court 782, in the case of State of Harayana vrs. Ram Mehar and Others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 76 and in the case of Khoob Singh vrs. State of M.P. decided on 8th of March, 2018 in MCRC No.26900 of 2017.

5. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant, however, supported the order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi. It has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the State that the Honble Supreme Court had been pleased to direct conclusion of trial by the end of March, 2021 and P.W.24 has been examined and cross-examined at length. Therefore, allowing the petitioner for recall of P.W.24 at this stage would amount to protraction/ procrastin