The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the principles governing the recall and re-examination of witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), ruling that vague and unsubstantiated grounds are insufficient to justify recalling witnesses for further cross-examination. The judgment came in the case of Neha Begum & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3910 of 2024, decided by a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Neha Begum and others, are facing trial for charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, before the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, Assam. The trial had reached an advanced stage when the petitioners filed an application under Section 231(2) read with Section 311 CrPC, seeking to recall and further cross-examine six prosecution witnesses. The trial court, however, rejected this application on March 9, 2021, a decision which was upheld by the Gauhati High Court on January 19, 2024.
The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s order. The primary contention raised by the petitioners was that their previous lawyer had not properly cross-examined the witnesses, thereby necessitating a recall to ensure a fair trial.
Legal Issues Involved
The core issue before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of Section 311 CrPC, which empowers a court to recall and re-examine witnesses if their evidence appears essential to a just decision of the case. This section operates in two parts:
1. The first part confers discretionary power on the court to summon or recall witnesses if it deems fit.
2. The second part mandates that the court must summon and examine or recall and re-examine any person if their testimony is essential for a just decision.
The petitioners argued that the rejection of their application was erroneous and that the power under Section 311 CrPC should have been exercised to allow further cross-examination. They claimed that their previous counsel’s failure to adequately cross-examine amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Decision of the Supreme Court
After hearing the arguments presented by Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, Mr. Sidhant Dutta, Mr. Saksham Garg, and Mr. Jyotirmoy Chatterjee, representing the petitioners, and Mr. Shuvodeep Roy and Mr. Krishanu Barua, representing the respondents, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition.
The court observed that the application filed by the petitioners lacked specific grounds and relied merely on a general claim that the former lawyer had not conducted a proper cross-examination. It held that such vague assertions do not warrant the recall of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC. The bench emphasized that the power to recall witnesses should not be used to “fill in the lacuna” of a defense case, which would otherwise cause “serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”
Important Observations by the Court
In its judgment, the court reiterated the principles laid out in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and emphasized several key points:
– The discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
– The court should be satisfied that recalling a witness is necessary for arriving at a just decision and not merely to rectify mistakes or oversights by the defence.
– The petitioners’ claim that their previous counsel did not adequately cross-examine witnesses was deemed insufficient, as “no such specific ground was alluded” that could justify the invocation of Section 311 CrPC.
– The application appeared to be “an attempt to fill in the lacuna,” and there was “nothing on record to suggest that non-summoning of the witnesses for further cross-examination could cause grave prejudice to the accused.”
The bench clarified that the object of Section 311 CrPC is to empower the court to determine the truth and render a just decision, but this power should not be misused to give one party an undue advantage.
