Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme Court has allowed a plea for recall of a witness under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, citing its judgement in RJD MP Prabhunath Singh's case that it is essential to invoke the discretionary power for just decision of the case.

In its decision on August 29, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S V N Bhatti relied upon the three-judge bench's August 18 judgement in the case of 'Harendra Rai Vs State of Bihar', related to murder of two voters by Singh for voting against him in 1995. The convict was handed down life term on September 1.

In the instant case, the court was dealing with an appeal filed by Satbir Singh against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgement of December 14, 2021 which rejected his plea for recall of a witness.

The matter pertained to theft of company's data on manufacturing equipments by ex employees. When the forensic expert was examined, he had no occasion to ask him about the data found on hard disk of computers of the accused as by then forensic report was not available. Within days, he filed a plea for recall of the witness, contending the comparison of the two sets of data was the main essence of the complaint and without this, the trial itself would be reduced to a farce.

The plea was opposed on contention that the appellant was only indulging in dilatory tactics and he could not be allowed to fill the lacunae at this stage.

With regard to Section 311 of the CrPC, the bench cited 'Ratanlal v Prahlad Jat' (2017) judgement by the Supreme Court, which said, "In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who are expected.to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute".

It also referred to the SC judgement in 'Manju Devi v State of Rajasthan', (2019) in which it was emphasised that a discretionary power like Section 311, CrPC is to enable the Court to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity regarding the evidence, whilst also ensuring no prejudice is caused to anyone. 

The bench also relied upon the SC's August 18 judgement in 'Harendra Rai v State of Bihar' (2023) (Prabhunath Singh) in which, a three-judge bench of this court was of the opinion that Section 311, CrPC should be invoked when ‘… it is essential for the just decision of the case.’

The court, thus, allowed the application for recall of the witness for further examination within six weeks. It also directed for conclusion of the trial within 9 months.

"We find that if opportunity is given for reexamination, respondents no.2 to 9 (accused) will not be prejudiced as they will have ample opportunity to cross-examine the appellant. We have noted their apprehension apropos delay and issued appropriate direction infra," the bench said.

Case Title: Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Click here to read judgment