Courts may permit limited witness recall under Section 311 CrPC to confront material inconsistencies.

FIR No. 953 dated 13.12.2020 was registered at Police Station Karnal Sadar under Sections 323, 324, 326, 34 and 506 IPC, alleging that Mohit Kumar, his father Sulekh and his mother Santosh assaulted respondent No. 2 on 05.12.2020. The FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of eight days.

Respondent No. 2 initially sought cancellation of the FIR, stating that the matter had been amicably resolved; the Investigating Officer thereafter submitted a cancellation report attributing the injuries to an accidental fall.

Respondent No. 2 subsequently withdrew that position, further investigation was conducted, and Mohit Kumar and Sulekh were challaned while Santosh was found innocent.

Charges were framed on 02.03.2022. During trial, nine prosecution witnesses were examined, including PW-1 Himanshu and PW-5 Head Constable Sanjay Kumar.

The petitioner moved an application under Section 311 CrPC, corresponding to Section 348 BNSS, seeking recall of certain witnesses on the basis of alleged contradictions, particularly regarding the place of occurrence.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on 05.03.2026.

Whether the Trial Court acted illegally or improperly in dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 311 CrPC/Section 348 BNSS for recall of prosecution witnesses.

Whether, in the interest of justice, PW-1 and PW-5 could be granted one further opportunity for cross-examination limited exclusively to the alleged inconsistency regarding the place of occurrence.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order.

It applied Section 311 CrPC, corresponding to Section 348 BNSS, which permits the Court to recall and re-examine a witness where such evidence is essential for a just decision of the case.

The governing principle identified by the Court was that discovery of truth and advancement of justice are paramount considerations in a criminal trial; however, recall cannot be permitted as a means to fill lacunae or unduly prolong proceedings.

Although PW-1 and PW-5 had already been cross-examined in detail, the petitioner’s restricted request concerned a material contradiction as to the place of occurrence: PW-1 stated that the incident occurred in his plot, whereas PW-5 located it at point “A” on the road from Kalvehri to Subri.

The Court held that this issue was sufficiently material to justify a narrowly confined further opportunity, particularly because PW-5 had not earlier been confronted with PW-1’s statement on that aspect.

Applying the principle that the truth-seeking function of a criminal trial should prevail, while preventing abuse of the recall power, the Court allowed only a limited further cross-examination and expressly excluded reopening any other part of the witnesses’ testimony.

The petitioner was granted one effective opportunity to further cross-examine PW-1 Himanshu and PW-5 Head Constable Sanjay Kumar, strictly and exclusively for confronting them with their respective statements regarding the place of occurrence.

No further cross-examination on that issue or any other aspect was permitted, and the Trial Court was directed to complete the limited exercise expeditiously without allowing the proceedings to be delayed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of as infructuous.