IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld that Section 311 Cr.P.C. allows recall of witnesses only when essential for justice, emphasizing the need for strong justification for such applications.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 442 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 2022. By the said order, application filed by revisionists for recall of prosecution witnesses, under Section 311 of CrP.C. was rejected.

2. FIR No. 0287 of 2022 was registered on 17.06.2022 in Police Station Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 302 IPC, in which both revisionists were also named as accused. Upon investigation, Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet and revisionists are facing trial in the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur (Sessions Trial No. 184 of 2022). In the said trial, statement of P.W.1 was recorded in the month of December, 2022, while Statement of P.W.-2 and P.W.3 were recorded in February, 2023. True copy of statements of these three witnesses are on record as Annexure 3 to the criminal revision, perusal whereof indicates that the Defence Counsel had extensively cross-examined these prosecution witnesses.

3. After more than a year of recording statement of P.W.1, P.W.2 & P.W.3, an application, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was moved on 21.05.2024 on behalf of revisionists for recall of these prosecution witnesses, on the ground that certain relevant questions could not asked from them. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application vide order dated 30.07.2024 by holding that prayer for recall of witnesses is not justified. Thus, feeling aggrieved, revisionists have approached this Court.

4. Heard Ms. Chetna Latwal, learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr. Shaurabh Pande, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and perused the record.

5. Learned trial court has given valid reasons for rejecting the prayer for recall of witnesses made by revisionists. It is held that all the three prosecution witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by Defence Counsel more than a year ago and the ground taken for seeking recall of witnesses is not sufficient.

6. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is extracted below for ready reference:-

“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.

- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

7. A plain reading of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. reveals that it enables a Court to summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned, or recall or re-examine any person, who has been examined; if his evidence appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case. Thus, Section 311 of Cr.P.C. does not create any right for recall of witness in favour of any party to the proceeding and the said Section empowers a Court to recall and re-examine a witness to ensure 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.

8. In the case of Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 340, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while discussing the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C., has held as under:-

“17. In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. The object of the provision as