IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jasmer Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Date of Uploading : 22.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Ravinder Singh Randhawa, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tarranum Madan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mrs. Priyanka Sadar, Sr. DAG Hry.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby the application moved by the prosecution-State under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-8 Gagan Dhupar (complainant) for identification of his voice in CDs already exhibited as Ex. MO-6 and Ex. MO-7, has been allowed.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order passed by the Court below, allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the complainant PW-8 - Gagan Dhupar has already been examined and cross examined at length on several dates in the year 2022 and despite being in possession of the CDs during investigation, the prosecution has failed to play the same at the relevant stage. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been after a considerable delay i.e. after closure of prosecution evidence and even after the final arguments which amounts to permitting the prosecution to fill up the lacunae in the case. Learned senior counsel has emphasized that permitting recall of the complainant at this stage would seriously prejudice the rights of the accused and the same amounts to misuse of the discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the identification of voice shall be done by an expert witness that requires scientific and technical examination, therefore, recalling the complainant for such a purpose is neither permissible nor essential for the just decision of the case. According to learned senior counsel, the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic, sketchy, non-reasoned, devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set-aside.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present revision petition and submits that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rightly allowed by the Court below as the recall of PW-8 Gagan Dhupar is essential for proper adjudication of the case. Learned State counsel has iterated that the complainant has handed-over two CDs containing his conversation with the accused persons during investigation and the same already stands exhibited As ExMO-6 and Ex.MO-7. However, due to inadvertence, the CDs could not be played during his deposition and the recall of the witness is only to identify his own voice in the said recordings, which is essential for a just decision of the case. According to learned State counsel, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-accused as full opportunity of cross-examination shall also be available to him. Furthermore, the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is very wide and can be exercised at any stage of the trial to prevent failure of justice. On the strength of these submission, the dismissal of the instant revision petition is prayed for.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper-book.

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178; relevant whereof reads as under:-

“8.4 As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge:

(I) The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows:

(i) The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether s