The discretion to recall witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously, and valid and sufficient reasons must be provided for the recall.

Revisionists have challenged the order dated 19.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2017, ‘State of Uttarakhand v. Kuldeep and others’, whereby the application moved by the revisionists under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. On 19.05.2015, an F.I.R. was lodged by one Mr. Padam Singh Rawat, father of the deceased against the revisionists under Section 304(B) of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, charges were framed against the revisionists and as many as 10 witnesses have been examined. Thereafter, the revisionists moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 15.12.2017 for recalling the P.W.-1 & P.W.-2 for further cross-examination; but, the learned District & Sessions Judge rejected the said application.

3. The application was filed on the ground that some important questions were left to be asked in the cross examination. Further ground was that when the P.W.-1 & P.W.-2 were cross examined, at that point of time, Senior Advocate representing the accused was out of the country and the cross examination was conducted by the junior counsel.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that though it was a simple case of poisoning and poison was consumed by the deceased in her sister’s house; but, entire family of the revisionists have been booked in the present case. He further submitted that the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be filed at any stage and there is no limitation as such. In support of his contention, he referred to para 12 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of A.P. reported in 2012 (2) N.C.C. 500, which is being reproduced below:

“12. The nature and extent of the power vested in the Courts under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses was examined by this Court in Hanuman Ram v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 652. This Court held that the object underlying Section 311 was to prevent failure of justice on account of a mistake of either party to bring on record valuable evidence or leaving an ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses. This Court observed:

“This is a supplementary provision enabling, and in certain circumstances imposing on the Court, the duty of examining a material witness who would not be otherwise brought before it. It is couched in the widest possible terms and calls for no limitation, either with regard to the stage at which the powers of the Court should be exercised, or with regard to the manner in which it should be exercised. It is not only the prerogative but also the plain duty of a Court to examine such of those witnesses as it considers absolutely necessary for doing justice between the State and the subject. There is a duty cast upon the Court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means and one of such means is the examination of witnesses of its own accord when for certain obvious reasons either party is not prepared to call witnesses who are known to be in a position to speak important relevant facts.

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 or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the Court to summon a witness under the Section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquires and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Sect