Public Prosecutor retains discretion to withhold unreliable witnesses and recall formal witnesses for a fair trial.

The proceedings arise from Panskura P.S. Case No. 495/2019 involving the murder of a political figure

After the charge sheet was filed, the State attempted to withdraw the prosecution under Section 321 CrPC, but this notification was quashed by the High Court

Due to witnesses turning hostile and alleged state interference, the Hon’ble Supreme Court transferred the trial to the City Sessions Court, Calcutta, directing the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP)

The current revisional applications challenge three interlocutory orders: (i) the refusal to discharge a witness (CSW-25) deemed unreliable by the SPP; (ii) granting leave to the SPP to cross-examine a police witness (PW-75) who turned hostile during cross-examination; and (iii) the partial rejection of the SPP’s application to examine/recall several material and forensic witnesses

1. Whether the Trial Court can compel the prosecution to examine a witness (CSW-25) whom the Public Prosecutor considers unnecessary or compromised

2. Whether the Court can permit the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness under Section 154 of the Evidence Act after the conclusion of cross-examination by the defense

3. Whether the SPP should be permitted to examine/recall additional forensic and official witnesses to ensure a fair trial, despite earlier trial timelines

The Court applied the principle from Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, establishing that the Public Prosecutor has the discretion to withhold witnesses believed to be unreliable or won over

Regarding hostile witnesses, the Court invoked Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the precedent in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat, which allows the Court to permit cross-examination of one's own witness at any stage if the witness exhibits an adverse disposition

Section 311 of the CrPC was applied to ensure the discovery of truth, supported by the Supreme Court’s observations in the same trial context regarding the necessity of a meaningful trial over strict adherence to timelines

In CRR 2880/2023, the Court reasoned that the SPP is an officer of the Court with the autonomy to lead evidence; compelling the examination of a witness (CSW-25) whom the SPP bona fide believes was used by the accused to threaten others would be unreasonable

In CRR 464/2025, the Court found that although PW-75 (a police officer) initially supported the state, his material departure during cross-examination revealed a desire to suppress the truth. Exercising discretion under Section 154 was held valid because the Trial Judge observed the witness's demeanour firsthand

In CRR 473/2026, the Court noted the trial's "chequered history," including the State's prior attempt to withdraw the case. It held that the witnesses sought (forensic experts, Magistrates, and photographers) were essential official witnesses, not fillers for lacunae, and their testimony was vital for a "just decision" under Section 311 CrPC

(i) The order compelling the examination of CSW-25 is set aside, upholding the SPP's discretion. (ii) The order allowing the SPP to cross-examine the hostile police witness (PW-75) is upheld. (iii) The Trial Court is directed to permit the examination/recall of seven specific witnesses, including forensic experts and Magistrate Arghya Acharya, ensuring the defense has the right to cross-examine.

The Trial Court was instructed to proceed expeditiously without being constrained by previous deadlines