The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the court to ensure a fair trial, the power of the court to summon, examine, or recall witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C, and the need to exercise this power judiciously to ensure a just decision.

JUDGMENT :

Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and it is the duty of every court to ensure that such fairness is neither hampered nor threatened. It entails interest of the accused, the victim and the society, and as has been held by the Apex Court in Natasha Singh v. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 (2 Judge Bench) it includes grant of fair and proper opportunities to all concerned, for fair trial is not only a constitutional but a human right.

2. Free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Any hindrance or obstruction would be violative of Article 14. Denial of a fair trial is as much an injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. It necessarily requires a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and in an atmosphere of judicial calm. Since the object of trial is to mete out justice and convict the guilty and protect the innocent, trial should be a search for the truth and not about over technicalities and must be conducted under such rules as would protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Justice should not only be done but should be seemed to have been done to the innocent. This is what the Apex Court reiterated in State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar and Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 762(2 Judge Bench).

3. Justice, Krishnaiyer, J in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Anr. v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167 (2 Judge Bench) observed that assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of dispensation of justice. Also referring to Ram Chander v. State of Haryana,(1981) 3 SCC 191 (2 Judge Bench) and Nellore v. Insha Ramana Reddy, 1972 Crl.L.J 1485 (2 Judge Bench) it was observed that “every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest, it is the duty of a presiding Judge to explore every avenue open to him in order to discover the truth and to advance the cause of justice.”

4. That assurance of fair trial is a necessary concomitant of rule of law stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 (2 Judge Bench) which reads as follows :

“3. The narration of the sad chronology shocks the judicial conscience and gravitates the mind to pose a question, is it justified for any conscientious trial Judge to ignore the statutory command, not recognize "the felt necessities of time" and remain impervious to the cry of the collective asking for justice or give an indecent and uncalled for burial to the conception of trial, totally ostracizing the concept that a civilized and orderly society thrives on rule of law which includes "fair trial" for the accused as well as the prosecution.”

5. Rejection of the prosecutors request for recalling the prosecutrix as a witness for her re-examination, more so at her behest, has warranted this Court to revisit the aforesaid principles of fair trial – an indispensible tool of criminal justice system.

6. On 27th June, 2016 prosecutrix got registered a complaint against the accused under Sections 342, 376 and 506 IPC at West Agartala Women Police Station being FIR No.2016 WAW 052. Her multiple statements including the one under Section 164 Cr.P.C led the investigator to file the charge sheet, in relation to which, the accused were put to trial for having committed offences under Sections 342, 376 and 506 IPC against accused Panna Ahamed and Section 212 IPC against the other two accused namely Dipak Das and Gautam Das.

7. On 4th June, 2018, immediately after part-completion of cross-examination of her testimony, prosecutrix, through the Public Prosecutor expressed her desire of appointing another lawyer. As such, matter was adjourned. Undisputedly, State took a decision to change the Public Prosecutor, entrusting the brief to a Special Public Prosecutor, who without much delay, filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C seeking re-examination of the prosecutrix necessarily required for just decision of the case. Necessity thereof, stands assigned in Paras 2 and 3 of the application which read as under:

“2