Recall and re-examination of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC must be judicially necessary, not a device to fill prosecution gaps.

Section 311 CrPC gives the court wide power to recall and re-examine a witness, but only when the evidence is essential for a just decision and the request is made for a proper judicial purpose. Read with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, re-examination is confined to explaining matters arising in cross-examination and cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution case or alter an earlier sworn version unless real necessity is shown and no serious prejudice results. On the facts, the High Court failed to respect the trial court's reasoned refusal, and the order permitting recall was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in permitting recall and re-examination of a prosecution witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and in interfering with the trial court's refusal to allow such re-examination.

Analysis: Section 311 confers very wide powers to summon, recall, and re-examine a witness at any stage, but the power must be exercised judicially and only where the evidence appears essential for the just decision of the case. Read with Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, re-examination is intended to explain matters arising in cross-examination and cannot be used as a device to fill gaps in the prosecution case or to change an earlier sworn version, unless the facts show real necessity and no serious prejudice or miscarriage of justice. On the facts, the witness had already given a categorical version before the trial court, had not promptly complained of coercion, and the trial court's refusal was supported by reasoned findings. The High Court's interference was made without adequate consideration of those findings.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in allowing the application under Section 311 and the trial court's order refusing recall and re-examination was rightly restored.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the prosecution witness was not permitted to be recalled for re-examination; the trial was directed to proceed from the stage at which it had been left.

Ratio Decidendi: The power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to recall or re-examine a witness is wide but must be exercised only when the evidence is essential to a just decision and not as a means to fill a lacuna or cause prejudice, with the court acting judicially, cautiously, and on reasoned necessity.

---