IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Hansa Singh and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondent Date of decision: 12.12.2025 Date of Uploading : 12.12.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate for the petitioners.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The petition in hand is a revision petition filed under Section 442 of BNSS laying challenge to order dated 01.10.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge Special Court, Bathinda Vide the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioners for summoning/recalling five prosecution witnesses for further cross examination.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record and is well within the limitation period. Learned counsel has further iterated that the Court below has erroneously dismissed the application whereby the petitioners sought summoning/recalling of material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sandeep Singh, Constable, Punjab Police, PW-5 Kewal Singh, PW-7 Dr. Deep Singh Rattan Mittal, Ex-Medical Officer & Forensic Science Expert, PW-10 Sandeep Singh Bhatti, DSP City-I, Bathinda (then SHO, P.S. Nathana), PW-12 SI Harbans Singh, the then IO/Incharge PP Bhucho Mandi. Learned counsel has further submitted that the entire prosecution story hinges on the testimonies of aforesaid five witnesses, whose further cross-examination is essential for a just and proper adjudication of the case. According to learned counsel, the object behind moving the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is neither to delay the proceedings nor to fill any lacuna but solely to bring out the truth. Furthermore, the recalling of the these five prosecution witnesses is necessary as well as imperative as their further cross-examination is crucial to clarify material aspects which go to the root of the matter and without such examination, the defence would be gravely prejudiced. Learned counsel has emphasized that Section 311 Cr.P.C. embodies a legislative mandate that no valuable evidence should remain excluded due to inadvertence, mistake or ambiguity in the testimony of witnesses. The power under this provision exists to prevent failure of justice and to ensure completeness of the record. Moreover, the Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial which necessarily includes the right to an effective cross-examination and denial of an opportunity to cross-examine material witnesses strikes at the very root of this constitutional protection. Learned counsel has further contended that further cross-examination will not cause any prejudice to the prosecution. Learned counsel has further contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate the true scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. as the provision confers wide powers on the Court to summon or recall any person at any stage of the trial if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. Learned counsel has further submitted that the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It is argued that the reasoning of the Court below that the petitioners were trying to delay the proceedings is misconceived as the delay, if any, was occasioned only on account of the evasive conduct of the witness (which are sought to be recalled herein). Moreover, the Court below has dismissed the application without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

3. Since this Court has proceeded to adjudicate upon the petition in hand, at the limine stage and having regard to the nature of order being passed, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents or to call for their reply as no further pro