Recall of witness after closure of evidence cannot cure prosecution lapse where late proof of disclosure statements prejudices fair trial.

Section 311 CrPC may be used to recall a witness only when the court is satisfied that it is essential for a just decision; it should not be used to cure a prosecution lapse by introducing disclosure statements after evidence has closed if that would prejudice the accused. Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits only the part of information that distinctly leads to discovery, and recovery records should ordinarily record the disclosure in first person to preserve fairness. On these facts, late recall of the investigating officer for proof of the disclosure statements was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court could permit recall and re-examination of the investigating officer under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the evidence had been closed, for proving alleged disclosure statements said to have led to recovery.

Analysis: Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits only that part of information which distinctly leads to discovery, and the disclosure statement should ordinarily be recorded in first person in the relevant recovery records so as to guard against manipulation and preserve fairness of trial. Where the recovery mahazars and case diary entries are silent about such disclosure statements, allowing the prosecution to introduce and prove them only after the entire evidence is over and the case is posted for examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would prejudice the accused. The power under Section 311 is wide, but it can be exercised only when the Court is satisfied that the recall is essential for a just decision, and not when it would upset the fairness of the defence or risk miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: Recall and re-examination of the investigating officer for late production and proof of the disclosure statements was not warranted and was liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to recall a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to cure a prosecution lapse by introducing vital evidence after closure of the trial if doing so would prejudice the accused and impair a fair trial.

---