Post-Testimony Receipt of DNA Report Does Not Automatically Entitle Accused to Recall Prosecutrix Under Section 311 CrPC

The applicant filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging an order dated 15.06.2026 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur.

The Trial Court had rejected the applicant’s request under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall the prosecutrix (PW/1) for further cross-examination.

The applicant argued that because the DNA report was only received after the prosecutrix's testimony was recorded, she needed to be recalled to answer questions pertaining to that scientific evidence.

The State opposed the petition, noting that the DNA expert had already been cross-examined and that Section 311 cannot be used to fill lacunae in a case.

1. Whether the subsequent receipt of a DNA report constitutes a sufficient ground to recall a prosecutrix for further cross-examination under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to recall the witness resulted in a failure of justice or a violation of the right to a fair trial.

The Court applied Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to the manual's mention of Section 528 BNSS), which grants discretionary power to recall witnesses to meet the ends of justice, provided it is exercised with "care, caution and circumspection".

The power must be used for "strong and valid reasons", as emphasized in Raja Ram Prasad v. State of Bihar.

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav held that recall is not a matter of course and requires tangible reasons showing how a fair trial would suffer without it.

Ratan Lal v. Prahlad Jat affirmed that while Section 311 aims to find the truth, it should not be used arbitrarily or to fill gaps in a party’s case.

The DNA report is an expert opinion based on scientific examination, a field in which the prosecutrix possesses no specialized knowledge.

Since the report was not prepared by her, she could not provide meaningful testimony regarding its scientific specifics.

The DNA expert (the Scientific Officer) had already been examined and cross-examined by the defense, providing the applicant with the necessary opportunity to contest the scientific evidence.

The applicant failed to demonstrate any specific or scientific questions that only the prosecutrix could answer to assist the Court in reaching the truth.

The applicant had already exercised all possible defenses during the initial cross-examination, and the subsequent DNA report did not automatically create a right to recall the victim.

The power to recall witnesses must be exercised judiciously and not for the purpose of filling lacunae, leading to the dismissal of the petition as being devoid of merit.