Procedural technicalities cannot override the substantive right of cross-examination essential for a fair trial.

The petitioners were charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

During the trial (S.T. No. 215/2023), the examination-in-chief of prosecution witness PW-7 (Smt. Shubhangana Singh) was recorded on 23.11.2024, and the matter was adjourned to 09.12.2024 for cross-examination.

On the scheduled date, the petitioners' counsel was engaged in another court and reached the trial court at 4:45 PM, by which time the court had closed the right to cross-examine PW-7.

The petitioners subsequently filed an application to recall the witness for cross-examination, which was rejected by the 17th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, on 28.02.2026.

The petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Whether the trial court's closure of the right to cross-examine a material prosecution witness and the subsequent dismissal of a recall application resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Whether the right to cross-examine is a substantive right under the principle of audi alteram partem and the guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court primarily applied Section 311 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 348 of the BNSS), which grants courts wide discretionary power to recall or re-examine any witness if their evidence appears essential for a "just decision of the case".

It relied on Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013), which established that such power must be exercised judicially to ensure the discovery of truth.

The court cited Mrs. Kalyani Bhaskar v. Mrs. M. S. Sampoornam (2007) to affirm that a "fair trial" includes providing the accused a proper opportunity to adduce evidence and prove their innocence as a valuable right.

The court also invoked its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC).

The High Court observed that the trial court committed a manifest error by denying the petitioners a fair opportunity to cross-examine a material witness on hyper-technical grounds.

The court noted that the counsel’s delay on 09.12.2024 was due to bona fide engagement in another court and was not a deliberate attempt to stall proceedings.

The court reasoned that cross-examination is the most effective method to test the veracity of a witness and that the object of a criminal trial is to discover the truth rather than secure a conviction at any cost.

It emphasized that procedural rules are "handmaids of justice" and should not override substantial justice, especially when the defense's right to effectively defend itself is at stake.

Consequently, the refusal to recall PW-7 amounted to a denial of a fair trial.

The court held that the interest of justice required permitting the recall of PW-7 for cross-examination to ensure a fair and balanced trial.

The trial court was directed to complete the recall process within 30 days of the receipt of the order.

To prevent misuse, the court imposed several stringent conditions, including: the petitioners must not seek adjournments; the counsel must be present on the scheduled date; and an undertaking must be filed to complete the cross-examination within the stipulated timeframe.