Recall for further examination-in-chief under Section 311 CrPC is impermissible to belatedly improve testimony.

The petitioner (wife) and respondent no. 2 (husband) married in 2004. In 2006, the petitioner lodged FIR No. 312/2006 under Sections 498A/323/506 IPC in Bangalore, alleging cruelty.

Her examination-in-chief was recorded before the ACMM, Bangalore, in 2012 and 2014.

She subsequently sought further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., which was eventually set aside by the Supreme Court in 2025 (Rampal Gautam v. State).

The Supreme Court granted her liberty to move applications under Section 311 or 319 Cr.P.C. for redressal.

The case was transferred to Delhi, where the petitioner was eventually dropped as a witness on 31.07.2025 due to non-appearance.

The prosecution subsequently filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall her.

By the impugned order dated 11.03.2026, the Trial Court allowed the recall but restricted it to cross-examination only, refusing further examination-in-chief.

The petitioner challenged this restriction.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in restricting the recall of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to cross-examination only and denying her the opportunity for further examination-in-chief to record allegedly omitted facts.

The court primarily applied Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which empowers the court to summon or recall any person as a witness if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.

It relied on Mohan Lal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, which held that witnesses can be recalled at any stage if essential for justice.

The court also adhered to the principles established by the Supreme Court in the preceding litigation of this case, Rampal Gautam v. State (2025), regarding the prevention of "improved versions" of testimony and the necessity of timely prosecution.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s examination-in-chief had already been recorded on two separate occasions in 2012 and 2014.

It noted the Supreme Court’s prior finding that the petitioner had failed to level allegations against her in-laws in her early statements and initial testimony, describing later attempts as "vague" and "improved versions".

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim of a language barrier (Kannada) during the Bangalore proceedings, noting she failed to raise this issue for over a decade.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the Section 311 application was moved by the prosecution only after the petitioner was dropped for non-appearance, rather than by the petitioner herself immediately following the Supreme Court’s grant of liberty.

The Court reasoned that permitting further examination-in-chief after 12 years would unfairly allow the petitioner to fill lacunae and introduce fresh allegations, causing grave prejudice to the accused.

The Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the impugned order.

The petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court's order permitting recall only for the purpose of cross-examination was upheld.