Compromise between parties does not justify recall of witnesses in non-compoundable criminal offences.

The petitioners (accused) were facing trial in Sessions Trial POCSO Case No. 86 of 2021 for offenses under Sections 376(A)(D), 506/34 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act

After the completion of cross-examination of PW-1 (Informant/Victim) and PW-2 (Mother), the petitioners moved an application on 21.09.2024 under Sections 311 and 233(3) of the CrPC to recall the said witnesses.

The primary ground for recall was an alleged compromise entered into between the parties on 02.04.2024 and a claim that the victim was a major

A previous recall application had already been rejected by the trial court and the High Court (in Cr. Rev. No. 543 of 2024), though the High Court had granted liberty to file a fresh petition on "other grounds"

The trial court rejected the second application on 14.11.2024, leading to this revision

1. Whether a witness can be recalled under Section 311 CrPC solely on the ground that a compromise has been reached between the parties in a non-compoundable offense

2. Whether the impugned order rejecting the recall of PW-1 and PW-2 suffered from any illegality, infirmity, or impropriety

Section 311 of the CrPC, which empowers the court to recall and re-examine any person if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case

Mannan Shaikh Vs. State of West Bengal (2014) 13 SCC 59, which establishes that the power to recall can be exercised at any stage for a fair trial

Offenses under Section 376 of the IPC (rape) are non-compoundable under the law

The Court observed that the petitioners failed to bring any new or valid grounds for the recall of witnesses despite the liberty previously granted by the High Court

While the petitioners argued that the compromise and the age of the victim necessitated re-examination for a "fair trial," the Court found that the witnesses had already been fully cross-examined and their testimonies completed

The Court reasoned that since the charges involved Section 376 IPC and provisions of the POCSO Act, the offenses are legally non-compoundable; therefore, a private settlement or compromise between the parties has no legal bearing on the merits of the prosecution or the necessity of recalling witnesses

Furthermore, the trial had reached the stage of defense evidence and arguments, and re-opening the prosecution evidence without substantive legal grounds was unwarranted

Finding no terminal illegality or impropriety in the trial court’s decision, the High Court affirmed the order dated 14.11.2024 and the criminal revision petition was dismissed