Change of counsel or deficient cross-examination are insufficient grounds to recall witnesses under Section 348 BNSS.

The petitioner was charged under Section 109 of the BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act following a complaint by Bindiya Nishad.

During the trial (Sessions Case No. 247/2024), PW-1 and PW-2 were cross-examined on 31.01.2025 by the petitioner’s then-counsel, and PW-3 and PW-5 were similarly cross-examined in May 2025.

Subsequently, the petitioner changed his legal counsel and filed an application under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 311 Cr.P.C.] to recall and re-cross-examine these witnesses, alleging that previous counsel failed to ask "important questions".

The Sessions Judge, Raipur, rejected this application on 06.12.2025, leading to the current petition.

Whether a change of counsel and subsequent allegation of deficient cross-examination constitute sufficient grounds to recall witnesses for re-examination under Section 348 of the BNSS.

The court applied Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the court to summon or recall witnesses if their evidence is "essential to the just decision of the case".

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent *State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav and Another* (2016) 2 SCC 402, which established that recalling witnesses cannot be allowed as a matter of routine or convenience, nor can it be justified merely by a change of advocate or alleged deficiency in prior cross-examination.

It also distinguished the petitioner's reliance on *Natasha Singh v. C.B.I.* (2013) 5 SCC 741 regarding the right to a fair trial.

The High Court observed that the records indicated that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-5 had already been cross-examined in detail by various counsels previously engaged by the accused.

The court reasoned that the defense had been provided a "reasonable opportunity" to examine these witnesses.

Applying the principle from *Shiv Kumar Yadav*, the court held that a trial cannot be prolonged or witnesses subjected to the hardship of repeated appearances simply because a new counsel believes the previous cross-examination was inadequate.

The court found that because the points mentioned in the recall application had already been addressed in previous examinations, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the recall was essential for a "just decision".

The Court affirmed that the change of counsel is not a valid ground for the re-examination of witnesses under Section 348 of the BNSS.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed at the motion stage.