Recall of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. after prolonged delay to confront inconsistencies is impermissible.

The petitioner, Monu @ Vijay Singh, is an accused in ST No. 180/2018 pending before the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam

The complainant/witness, Preetam Singh Solanki (PW-2), was cross-examined on May 3, 2019

On February 18, 2026—nearly seven years later—the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall PW-2 for further cross-examination

The petitioner contended that further questioning was necessary to confront PW-2 with inconsistencies in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and to seek clarifications regarding medical opinions

The Trial Court rejected the application on February 19, 2026

The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)

1. Whether the recall of a prosecution witness for further cross-examination after a delay of seven years is essential for a just decision of the case under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the Trial Court committed any illegality or perversity in rejecting the application for recall of the witness

Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. (power to summon material witnesses) and Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (inherent powers of the High Court)

The court relied extensively on the principles established by the Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2013 SC 3081), which dictate that the power to recall a witness must be exercised judiciously to reach a just decision and not to fill lacunae in the case

The rule emphasizes that while the court should be magnanimous in permitting mistakes to be rectified, the exercise of power must be based on "strong and valid reasons" and should not result in a "miscarriage of justice" for either party

The High Court noted that the trial had been pending for prosecution evidence and that the witness in question (PW-2) had already been examined seven years prior.

The court observed that the petitioner failed to explain why the proposed "substantial questions" could not have been asked during the original cross-examination or why the alleged inconsistencies could not be addressed through final arguments.

Applying the Rajaram Prasad Yadav criteria, the court found the request lacked bona fides and appeared to be a strategic attempt to "reopen the trial" in despair rather than a necessity for a just decision.

The court determined that no prejudice would be caused to the accused by the refusal, as the contradictions were already part of the record.

The court held that there was no impropriety, illegality, or perversity in the lower court's refusal to recall the witness after such a prolonged delay.

It concluded that the invocation of inherent jurisdiction was not warranted as the proposed further cross-examination was not essential for a just decision of the matter.