IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. allows for the recall of witnesses to ensure all relevant evidence is considered for a fair trial.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 laying challenge to the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by Special Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib whereby application; filed by the State, under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Cr.P.C.’), for re-calling two witnesses i.e. PW-1 (victim) and PW-3 (Shaminder Kumar) for further re-examination, has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the aforesaid two witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution in detail and have also been cross-examined by the defence. Moreover, the said witnesses have been recalled in a mechanical manner in order to fill up the lacuna and plugging the loopholes which would be detrimental to the case of the accused-petitioner. According to learned counsel, the Court below has erred in allowing the present application just to delay the trial. Learned counsel has further argued that the powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly and cautiously and not arbitrarily. However, the Court Sahib in Court; relevant whereof reads as under:

“7. That during trial on 05-01-2024 prosecution has examined victim as PW1 and material witness Shaminder Kumar was examined as PW3 on 07-02-2024. However, during examination both the witness PW-1 and PW-3 did not disclose about the factum of extra judicial confession suffered by accused in front of PW-3 and that the accused were identified by PW-1 at her house. Thus the Addl. Public Prosecutor moved an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C dated 06-3-2024 and sought further examination of material witness PW-1 and Pw-3 so that both the witness could be examined with regard to the facts which is material for the proper adjudication of the case. The Ld. Trial Court considered that material sought to be proved by prosecution, is very much relevant and essential for the just decision of the case and thus vide order dated 27-3-2024 has allowed the application of prosecution by exercising its judicial discretion.”

3. According to him, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality and warrants no interference at this stage. It has been argued that present petition has been filed with oblique motive to circumvent the trial of the case with the purpose to delay the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has also opposed the instant petition by arguing that Section 311 of Cr.P.C. confers a very wide power on the Court to summon any person as a witness or to recall and re-examine any person already examined at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding and further the Section casts a duty upon the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person, if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. It has been further argued that sufficient ground have been mentioned in the application for recalling aforesaid witnesses for further re-examination. Therefore, dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper-book.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2024:PHHC:024178; relevant whereof reads as under:

“8.4 As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge:

(I) The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows:

(i) The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is as to whether such evidence “appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

(ii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court even when cross-examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order.

(iii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowe