IMPORTANT POINT
The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to a fair trial, and courts must allow re-examination if essential for justice.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of order dated 23,10.2023 (Annexure P11) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby application filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, for re-calling of PW1 (victim), was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the re- examination of the victim was very much necessary for proper and fair adjudication of the case. He submits that some important facts/questions, which have material bearing on the decision of the case, were not earlier put to the victim (PW1) during her cross-examination. It has been further argued that the Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that the victim had already been examined at length and moreover no specific question or aspect has been mentioned in the application which necessitated re-examination of the said victim (PW1). According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures and the learned trial Court ought to have a I Sowed the said application. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

3. Learned State counsel as well as counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 have opposed the instant petition by arguing that sufficient opportunities were provided to the petitioner-accused for conducting cross-examination of the said witness (PW1) &all the material facts/questions have already been put to the victim during her cross-examination. It has been further argued that no plausible explanation has been furnished in the said application for re-calling the said witness for cross-examination. Therefore, dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for.

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

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2024 NCPHHC 24178; 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. empowers a criminal trial Court to even allow further examination/cross-examination of a witness at instance of the prosecution/accused,

(iv) A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such Court is seized of the matter.

(v) A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on an application made by a party to Us or on its own volition.

(vi) Successive applications for summoning same witness for examination/re-examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection.

(II) No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay down any such exhaustive guide-lines as every case is sui generis in terms of factual conspectus.

(III) Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power.”

6. The impugned order arises from a trial being undertaken a