Courts may recall witnesses to exhibit relevant primary evidence seized in separate criminal proceedings.

The petitioner, Pulkit Sharma, is the accused in FIR No. 10/2024 (PS Padav, Gwalior) involving an alleged shooting incident.

The prosecution's evidence includes CCTV footage from a courier shop, previously exhibited via a pen drive and photographs.

The original DVR containing this footage was seized in a separate case (FIR No. 571/2023).

The prosecution moved an application under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to re-summon Witness No. 5 (Maniram) to formally exhibit the DVR as primary evidence.

The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order dated February 25, 2026, which allowed this application, contending that evidence from an independent proceeding is inadmissible and that the prosecution was attempting to fill lacunae after the trial had reached its concluding stages.

1. Whether a DVR seized in a separate criminal proceeding can be summoned and exhibited as primary evidence in the current trial under Section 348 of BNSS.

2. Whether the re-summoning of a witness to authenticate existing evidence constitutes an impermissible attempt to fill prosecution lacunae.

The Court primarily applied Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers the court to summon or recall witnesses at any stage if their evidence is essential to a just decision.

It relied on Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India (1991), which held that such power is intended to secure justice and can be exercised at any stage.

The Court further cited Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013) and Natasha Singh v. CBI (2013) to establish that the "determinative factor" for summoning a witness is the necessity of the evidence for a just decision.

Finally, it invoked Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004), emphasizing the Court’s duty to ensure the truth is discovered for a fair trial.

The Court found that the DVR in question contains footage directly related to the incident and thus constitutes relevant primary evidence.

It rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding inadmissibility, noting that the prosecution was not introducing "new" or "extraneous" facts but was merely seeking formal authentication of evidence already on record in other forms (pen drive/photos).

The Court reasoned that Section 348 BNSS provides wide discretionary powers that must be exercised judiciously to advance justice rather than being hampered by procedural technicalities.

It concluded that no prejudice was caused to the accused, as the formal exhibition of primary evidence is essential for a just adjudication of the case.

The High Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s order dated February 25, 2026. Consequently, the petition under Section 528 of BNSS was dismissed.