Recall of witnesses post-trial is impermissible when judgment is reserved, ensuring efficient justice delivery without misusing procedural provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner has instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking recall of PW-29 and PW-41 for the limited purpose of further examination, so as to clarify and complete their testimonies on certain material and relevant issues arising during the course of trail.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner is the son of the deceased, Late Lambodhar Muni, and is also the victim within the meaning of the criminal jurisprudence. The present petition is being filed by the Petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023.

(ii) The deceased, was the proprietor of a distributor firm of Heritage Milk & Milk Products, and owing to the nature of his business, he used to reside for most of the time at his office-cum-residence, where he ordinarily spent the greater part of his day.

(iii) On the intervening night of 13/14.06.2020, the deceased, was brutally murdered during the commission of a dacoity at his office-cum-residence at Berhampur, as is borne out from the expert evidence available on record.

(iv) Upon entry into the office-cum-residence, it was found that the back gate was open and the lock thereof was broken. The deceased was found lying on the floor of a room near the bed on the ground floor of the premises. Further, suspected bloodstains were noticed inside the said room, and one screwdriver, two mobile phones, and one small pink colored towel having suspected bloodstains were recovered from the place of occurrence.

(v) Thereupon, the steel Godrej almira was found lying open and its contents were found scattered. On verification, it was revealed that valuable articles belonging to the family, including office cash and gold ornaments, were missing. The said office cash had not been deposited in the ICICI Bank, Berhampur, due to the COVID-19 outbreak, during which period regular daily transaction could not be carried.

(vi) That the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the Gosaninuagaon Police after registration of the FIR gave rise to serious suspicion and grave doubt regarding the fairness, imparity and authenticity of the investigation. Being dissatisfied with the said investigation, the petitioner approached this Court, seeking appropriate relief. Although this Court were not inclined to transfer the investigation to the CBI, it was pleased to direct the State Investigating Agency to undertake further investigation in the matter.

(vii) Thereafter, during the course of trial, PW-41, deposed with regard to the collection of biological and other physical evidences from the scene of crime; however, he inadvertently omitted to state in his deposition about the crucial fact that, during the scientific examination of the scene of crime, chance fingerprints were detected.

(viii) Upon such omission assumes critical significance inasmuch as the contemporaneous documentary record clearly establishes that two partial latent chance fingerprints marked as ‘A’ and ‘A1’ were detected on the outer surface of the safe-lock door of the steel almirah.

(ix) Pursuant thereto, the State Print Bureau, Bhubaneswar, after conducting a scientific examination, rendered an opinion that the chance fingerprints marked as ‘A’ and ‘A1’ were identical with the right middle finger and right ring finger impressions of the accused. During the course of trial, the fingerprint expert was examined as PW-33 and the Finger Print Examination Report was duly exhibited. However, owing t