Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 2522
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA
SRI. UMESH B. M. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 17452/2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Right to Fair Trial - The Court noted that the right to fair trial is constitutionally protected under Article 21. It stated that an oversight in the prosecution should not preclude the introduction of necessary evidence to ensure justice. The court has a participatory role and must take steps to rectify any oversight. (Paras 44, 49)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of murder under Section 302 IPC, filed an application for recalling witnesses after the evidence phase had closed, which was initially rejected by the trial court. The High Court intervened to ensure fair procedure.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to recall the specified witnesses as their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling witnesses after previous opportunities had been granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the power under Section 311 is to be exercised to serve justice and that the closure of evidence does not bar recalling witnesses if their evidence is essential; judicial caution is vital in exercising this discretion.
Result: Criminal Petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court recognizes the importance of recalling witnesses for a fair trial. (Para 3 , 4) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 08.12.2025 by which the concerned Court rejects an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter ‘Cr.P.C’ for short), seeking recall of the prosecution witnesses PW-9, PW-16 and PW-19 in S.C.No.354/2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’ for short).
2. Heard Sri.Shivaprasad S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime registered in Crime No.137/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The trial is pending in S.C.No.354/2019. The petitioner files an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of PW-9, PW-16 and PW-19 on 29.10.2025. The application comes to be rejected on the score that it is a ruse to drag the proceedings inter alia. The petitioner-accused is before the Court seeking for the application to be allowed.
4. A perusal at the order of the concerned Court would indicate that the application has been rejected on the score that several opportunities had been granted to the petitioner- accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and they cannot be recalled all over again, as this would lead to dragging of the proceedings. The petitioner is facing charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, which can lead to imprisonment for life. Therefore, the purport of Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which is to arrive at the truth, cannot be ignored. In the light of the offence being grave, one opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner for further cross- examination of prosecution witnesses as was sought for in the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The Apex Court has interpreted Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in the case of VARSHA GARG v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH , (2023) 19 SCC 646 , and has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
31. Having clarified that the bar under Section 301 is inapplicable and that the appellant is well placed to pursue this appeal, we now examine Section 311 of CrPC. Section 311 provides that the court “may”:
(i) Summon any person as a witness or to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; and
(ii) Recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined.
This power can be exercised at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC. The latter part of Section 311 states that the court “shall” summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person “if his evidence appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case”. Section 311 contains a power upon the court in broad terms. The statutory provision must be read purposively, to achieve the intent of the statute to aid in the discovery of truth.
32. The first part of the statutory provision which uses the expression “may” postulates that the power can be exercised at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The latter part of the provision mandates the recall of a witness by the court as it uses the expression “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”. Essentiality of the evidence of the person who is to be examined coupled with the need for the just decision of the case constitute the touchstone which must guide the decision of the court. The first part of the statutory provision is discretionary while the latter part is obligatory.
33. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni [Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 : 1991 SCC
