Recall of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC is impermissible to delay trial or fill lacunae.

The applicants were charged under Sections 324, 363, and 376-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

During the trial (S.S.T. No. 20 of 2023), prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.6 were examined and cross-examined

Subsequently, a Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) report was received after a two-year delay

The applicants moved an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to recall P.W.1 and P.W.6 for further cross-examination based on this report

The learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat, rejected the application on 11.05.2026, noting that the prosecution evidence had concluded and the matter was fixed for final arguments

The applicants approached the High Court seeking to quash this rejection

1. Whether the trial court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for the recall of P.W.1 and P.W.6

2. Whether the recall of the witnesses was essential for a just decision of the case or to ensure a fair trial in light of the subsequent F.S.L. report

The Court primarily applied Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., which grants discretionary power to a court to summon or recall any witness at any stage of an inquiry or trial if their evidence is essential for a just decision

This power must be exercised judiciously and cannot be used to fill lacunae in a party's case or to unnecessarily protract trial proceedings

The Court observed that while Section 311 Cr.P.C. provides broad discretionary powers, the trial court had already afforded the applicants sufficient opportunity for detailed cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.6

The Court noted that the expert witness who proved the F.S.L report had also been examined and cross-examined by the defence, meaning no prejudice was caused to the applicants by the timing of the report

Furthermore, the timing of the application—filed when the case was already fixed for final arguments—indicated an intention to delay the proceedings rather than a genuine necessity for adjudication

The High Court found that the trial court's order was well-reasoned and lacked any perversity or jurisdictional error that would justify the exercise of inherent jurisdiction

The High Court dismissed the C-528 application, ruling it devoid of merit

No order was made as to costs