Witness recall under criminal procedure upheld where omitted statement was an inadvertent oversight and no prejudice was shown.

Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives the court a wide but judicially controlled power to summon, recall, or re-examine a witness whenever the evidence is essential to a just decision. That power cannot be used to fill a lacuna or unfairly prejudice the accused, but recall was justified here because the Investigating Officer had already said he recorded the deceased's statement, the defence was aware of that fact, and the failure to exhibit the statement was an inadvertent oversight. As the recall request was made promptly and no serious prejudice was shown, the High Court's order permitting recall was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Investigating Officer could be recalled under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to bring on record the deceased's recorded statement, and whether the refusal to allow recall would amount to rejection of evidence essential to a just decision or merely permit the prosecution to fill a lacuna.

Analysis: Section 311 confers a wide power on the court to summon, recall, or re-examine a witness at any stage if the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The power must be exercised judicially and with circumspection, and not to enable a party to fill up a lacuna or cause prejudice to the accused. On the facts, the Investigating Officer had stated in evidence that he recorded the deceased's statement, the defence knew of that fact, and the omission to exhibit the statement was an inadvertent oversight. The application for recall was made soon after re-examination of the witness, and no serious prejudice to the defence was shown.

Conclusion: Recall of the Investigating Officer was justified under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the High Court's order permitting recall was upheld. The appeal failed.

---