An accused must receive one final opportunity to cross-examine material prosecution witnesses where denial would prejudice a fair trial.

The applicants, accused in Sessions Trial No. 50/2022 arising from Crime No. 89/2020 registered at Police Station Tala, District Satna, for offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 and 326 of the IPC, challenged the order dated 29 October 2025 by which the trial court rejected their application to recall prosecution witnesses A.W.-1 Shivnarayan and A.W.-2 Suhani and closed their right to cross-examine them.

The witnesses were examined-in-chief on 22 July 2024, but their cross-examination could not be conducted. The applicants attributed the omission to the illness and subsequent non-availability of their senior defence counsel, as well as paucity of court time on certain later dates when the witnesses were present.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the applicants had already been granted sufficient opportunities and that repeated adjournments would delay the trial.

Whether the applicants should be granted one final opportunity to recall and cross-examine A.W.-1 Shivnarayan and A.W.-2 Suhani despite the trial court having closed their right of cross-examination.

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, refusal to recall the material prosecution witnesses resulted in prejudice to the applicants and warranted interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied the principle that the right of cross-examination is a valuable safeguard in a criminal trial and an essential component of the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, as cross-examination enables the defence to test the veracity, credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses.

It also applied the discretionary power to recall witnesses under criminal procedure, while recognising that such power must not be used to encourage dilatory tactics or unnecessarily prolong the trial.

The Court further relied on the general Supreme Court principle that procedural laws are handmaids of justice and that an accused should ordinarily receive a reasonable opportunity to effectively defend himself, particularly where recalling the witnesses would not cause irreparable prejudice to the prosecution.

The Court found that the applicants’ failure to cross-examine the witnesses was attributed to the illness and non-availability of their senior defence counsel and, on some occasions, insufficient court time; there was no material indicating a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings.

Since A.W.-1 and A.W.-2 were material prosecution witnesses, permanently denying their cross-examination could prejudice the defence and undermine the fairness of the trial. Although the Court acknowledged the need to prevent repeated adjournments and trial delays, it considered that the interests of justice would be better served by granting one strictly final opportunity, subject to conditions, rather than foreclosing the applicants’ defence.

The trial court was directed to recall both witnesses and provide the applicants one final opportunity to cross-examine them. The applicants were required to complete the cross-examination on the date fixed without seeking unnecessary adjournment; failing this, the trial court was authorised to proceed in accordance with law.