Recall of witness under Section 311 CrPC is allowed when further examination is needed for a just decision and fair trial.

Section 311 CrPC confers a wide but discretionary power to summon, recall or re-examine a witness at any stage, and the court must use it only when the further evidence is essential for a just decision and to prevent failure of justice. An inadvertent omission in cross-examination is not, by itself, an impermissible attempt to fill a lacuna; the court must assess whether material questions remained unanswered and whether refusal would prejudice fair adjudication. Applying that principle, the refusal to recall the complainant was found unsustainable, and the accused was permitted to re-examine the complainant subject to conditions imposed by the HC.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant could be recalled for re-examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the trial court was justified in refusing such recall.

Analysis: Section 311 confers wide power on the court to summon, recall, or re-examine a witness at any stage, but the power must be exercised judiciously and only where the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. The governing consideration is the discovery of truth and prevention of failure of justice, and a mere objection that recall may help a party cannot by itself defeat the application. A lapse in cross-examination caused by inadvertence is not the same as filling an inherent lacuna, and the court must examine whether the witness was not fully questioned on material aspects and whether denial of recall would prejudice a fair adjudication.

Conclusion: The refusal to recall the complainant was unsustainable, and the application under Section 311 was rightly allowed.

Final Conclusion: The order of the trial court was set aside and the accused was permitted to re-examine the complainant, subject to the conditions fixed by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A witness may be recalled under Section 311 when further examination is necessary for a just decision of the case, and an inadvertent omission in cross-examination does not amount to an impermissible filling of lacuna.

---