Subsequent reconciliation in matrimonial disputes is not a valid ground for recalling witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

The applicant, along with his mother and elder brother, was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

During the trial, P.W.-1 (the wife of the applicant’s elder brother) was examined on 16.09.2021. At that time, she was living separately from her husband due to matrimonial discord.

Following a subsequent reconciliation and resumption of cohabitation, the applicant moved an application on 07.08.2025 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to recall P.W.-1 for further examination, contending that her previous testimony was influenced by the then-existing matrimonial strain.

The Trial Court rejected this application on 09.09.2025.

The applicant challenged this rejection before the High Court.

1. Whether the subsequent reconciliation of a witness with a co-accused constitutes a "material change in circumstances" sufficient to warrant the recall of said witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to recall P.W.-1 amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction or an error in law/discretion.

Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., which grants discretionary power to the court to summon or recall witnesses if their evidence is "essential for the just decision of the case".

Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 1346), which established that while the power under Section 311 is wide, it must be used sparingly, judicially (not capriciously), and only for eliciting material facts to reach the truth.

The power cannot be invoked to fill lacunae in the case of either the prosecution or the defence, nor to allow a disguise for a retrial.

The Court observed that the sole ground for the recall was the settlement of a matrimonial dispute between P.W.-1 and the applicant's brother.

The Court reasoned that Section 311 Cr.P.C. is intended for the just adjudication of the case, not to accommodate changes in the personal relationships of witnesses after their testimony has been legally recorded and cross-examined.

The Court found that the subsequent reconciliation does not ipso facto render earlier testimony unreliable or necessitate a de novo examination.

Applying the principles from Mohanlal Shamji Soni, the Court determined that allowing the recall in this instance would be an improper exercise of discretion, as it would effectively permit the defence to fill a lacuna and cause unnecessary prejudice to the prosecution and delay the trial.

The Court concluded that the Trial Court had correctly exercised its discretion and found no perversity or illegality in the impugned order.

Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application was dismissed.