S. 311 CrPC | Recall/Re-Examination Of Witness Not Permissible In Absence Of Tangible Reasons: Meghalaya High Court
Observing that a recall/re-examination of witness(es) is not permissible in the absence of tangible reason, the Meghalaya High Court on Monday (July 22) set aside the trial court's order which had permitted the prosecution to re-examine the complaint without specifying the requirement of recalling.
The bench comprising Justice B. Bhattacharjee observed that the witness could not be recalled merely because his recall was necessary for a just decision. The Court observed that it is essential for a trial court to mention for what purpose a witness is sought to be recalled, whether for clarification of matters referred to in cross-examination or for introduction of new matter, or for both purposes.
“A witness cannot be recalled for the purpose of putting repetitive question in order to seek improvement of evidence which is already a part of record. In the instant matter, the learned Trial Court has not recorded any such reason while allowing the application for recalling filed by the prosecution.”, the court said.
Taking a cue from the Supreme Court Judgment of Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., the court observed that though recall/re-examination of the witness already examined may be considered for arriving at the just decision, however, a witness cannot be recalled/re-examined if the essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined had not been ascertained before recalling such a person.
“In the present case, it appears that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order without recording any finding to ascertain the essentiality of the person ordered to be recalled. The application for recalling did not mention about occurrence of any error in the recording of evidence of the PW-1. In such a situation, there is every likelihood that the petitioner will be highly prejudiced in the event the PW-1 is examined afresh in the guise of re-examination by the prosecution on the basis of the impugned order.”, the court observed.
Accordingly, the court allowed the revision petition and set aside the recall order of the trial court.
Counsel(s) for Petitioner Mrs. R. Dutta, Legal Aid Counsel
Counsel(s) for Respondents Mr. R. Gurung, GA, Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA.
Case Details: Shri Nisal Lamurong Versus State of Meghalaya & Anr., Crl. Rev. P. No. 18 of 2023