The High Court of Karnataka has held that the discretionary power to recall witnesses under Section 311 of the CrPC cannot be exercised merely because a newly appointed Special Public Prosecutor holds a different view of the evidence. Dismissing a criminal petition, the Court ruled that recalling Investigating Officers to treat them as hostile at the final stage of a trial—when they have already deposed in consonance with the final report—would cause serious prejudice to the accused and amount to an abuse of the process of the law.
Background
The proceedings arise from a 2010 case registered at the Paper Town Police Station, Bhadravathi, for offences under Sections 120B, 147, and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC (Crime No. 74/2010). After the filing of the chargesheet and the completion of major evidence, the Prosecution filed two applications under Section 311 of the CrPC on February 1, 2025.
The first application sought to recall the victim (PW-2) to produce a Section 65B Certificate for a Video CD. The second application sought to recall four Investigating Officers (PW-15, PW-17, PW-18, and PW-19) to treat them as hostile. These applications were filed after the appointment of a new Special Public Prosecutor. The Trial Court rejected both applications on March 29, 2025, leading to the current petition.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioner (Informant): The petitioner contended that the evidence of PW-17 indicated that a Video CD containing a statement from PW-2 was received during the investigation. It was argued that PW-2 should be recalled to mark a Section 65B Certificate that was now ready. Regarding the officers, the petitioner argued that the new Special Public Prosecutor found their depositions to be “adverse to the documents and material relied on by the Prosecution,” necessitating their cross-examination to bring out the truth.
For the Respondents (Accused): The respondents argued that PW-2 was not the author of the video nor the custodian of the device, making her incompetent to provide a Section 65B Certificate. Regarding the Investigating Officers, they maintained that the witnesses had consistently adhered to the Prosecution’s own chargesheet. Crucially, they argued that a “mere change in the Special Public Prosecutor would not be a ground for recalling of the witnesses.”
Court’s Analysis
Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav analyzed whether the recall of these witnesses was “essential for a just decision of the case” as required under Section 311 CrPC.
On the Recall of PW-2: The Court noted that PW-2’s examination ended in 2022 and her Section 313 statement was already recorded. It found no details regarding the device used or the person who recorded the video. The Court observed:
“There are no details forthcoming as to whether the device which recorded was under the control of PW-2. Further, it is also necessary that the reasons are to be assigned as regards the relevance of the contents of the Video clip… which is also absent.”
On the Recall of Investigating Officers: The Court observed that the officers (PW-15 to PW-19) had tendered evidence in strict accordance with the Final Report they had filed 14 years prior. The Prosecution’s current attempt to treat them as hostile was seen as an effort to introduce a version of events contrary to the chargesheet.
The Court highlighted that the current move was essentially a change in strategy by new counsel:
“This would cause serious prejudice to the accused and cannot be permitted merely for the reason that the newly appointed Special Public Prosecutor has taken a different view of the matter.”
The Court further noted that previous attempts by the prosecution to treat these officers as Court witnesses or to put leading questions to them had already been dismissed by the Trial Court and the High Court.
Decision
The High Court concluded that since the officers deposed in consonance with the final report, there was no legal basis to treat them as hostile witnesses at the final stage of the trial. Remarking on the 15-year delay in the trial, the Court stated:
“Any effort to procrastinate the proceedings at this point of time would amount to be an abuse of the process of the Court.”
Accordingly, the petition was rejected.
Case Details:
- Case Title: C. Maheshkumar vs. State of Karnataka & Others
- Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 4788 of 2025
- Bench: Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
- Date: April 16, 2026
