The court emphasized that the power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, ensuring that it serves the ends of justice and is not based on arbitrary claims of coercion.

ORDER :

(Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J.)

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, arguments are heard finally.

This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 13.05.2023 passed by learned Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa (MP) in Session Trial No.130/2022 (State of M.P. Vs. Ashish Kumar Mishra & Others) for commission of offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 whereby an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the prosecution to recall three prosecution witnesses viz. Mathura Prasad Tiwari (P.W.-2), Seeta Tiwari (P.W.-3) and Sandhya Tiwari (P.W.-4) for re-examination has been allowed.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 11.05.2022, accused Ashish Kumar Mishra resident of Shaktinagar, Urhat, District-Rewa (MP) informed police of Police Station Sanam, Rewa that his marriage was solemnized with Sakshi Mishra D/o Mathura Prasad Tiwari on 20.11.2021. Family life was going smooth. On 10.05.2022, at around 11:30 pm, he came from the market and after having dinner alongwith the wife had gone to sleep in upstairs room. At around 04:00 pm, his younger brother Abhinav Mishra opened the door of his room and informed that sister-in-law (bhabhi) after bolting the door of your room from outside has committed suicide by hanging herself in stairs railing. He had seen that her wife has committed suicide by hanging herself. Merg was registered for unnatural death under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. In the course of enquiry and investigation, on 16.05.2022, Mathura Prasad Tiwari (father of the deceased) informed that he had performed the marriage of his daughter Sakshi (since deceased) with Ashish Mishra as per Hindu Customs & Rites. After marriage, Sakshi twice visited her parental house and informed that her husband is in habit of quarrelling and used to abuse her and used to say her “your parents have not given sufficient money in dowry, therefore, ask your father to give Rs.7,00,000/- in cash or one four-wheeler vehicle.” For fulfillment of demand of dowry, he had transferred Rs.40,000/- in the bank account of Ashish Mishra. It was also alleged that Ashish Mishra used to talk with some girl namely ‘Dhruv’ when Sakshi asked him not to talk with her, he used to quarrel with her. On account of persistent torture and harassment, they all compelled her daughter to commit suicide. FIR was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet for commission of aforesaid offence has been filed.

3. In the course of investigation, learned trial Judge framed the charges against the accused persons/petitioners for commission of offence under Section 304-B, 306, 498-A/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Petitioners claimed to be tried. Hence, they are facing session trial.

4. On 11.03.2023, prosecution witnesses viz. Mathura Prasad Tiwari (P.W.-2), Seeta Tiwari (P.W.-3) and Sandhya Tiwari (P.W.-4) were examined, cross-examined and discharged. On 13.05.2023 i.e. almost after two months of examination or cross-examination of the aforementioned three prosecution witnesses, learned Additional Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. contending that aforesaid three witnesses had tendered their evidence under threat, duress and coercion, therefore, they may be recalled for reexamination and further evidence.

5. Application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was allowed on the same day by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned order. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 11.03.2023, witnesses viz. Mathura Prasad Tiwari (P.W.-2), Seeta Tiwari (P.W.-3) and Sandhya Tiwari (P.W.-4) were examined and cross- examined in the open Court. In their evidence, they nowhere stated that they a