Witness recall before judgment remains permissible under criminal procedure when needed for a just decision, even after arguments end.

Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers a wide power to summon, recall, or re-examine a witness at any stage of an inquiry, trial, or other proceeding if the evidence is essential to a just decision. That power continues until judgment is pronounced, so recall or summoning is permissible even after arguments have concluded. The Court held that the provision aims to discover the truth, ensure a fair trial, and prevent failure of justice, and that an omission to examine a material witness is not the same as filling a true lacuna. The contrary earlier view was held incorrect and overruled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether recall or re-examination of a witness, or summoning of a witness for examination, can be permitted under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the arguments are over and before pronouncement of judgment. (ii) Whether the earlier view holding such recall impermissible lays down the correct law.

Issue (i): Whether recall or re-examination of a witness, or summoning of a witness for examination, can be permitted under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the arguments are over and before pronouncement of judgment.

Analysis: Section 311 confers very wide power on the Court to summon, examine, recall, or re-examine a witness at any stage of inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. The power is to be exercised judicially, with caution, and only where the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The trial does not conclude merely when arguments are heard; it reaches finality only upon pronouncement of judgment. The Court relied on the principles that the object of the provision is to discover truth, secure fair trial, and prevent failure of justice, and that inadvertent omission or oversight by the prosecution is not the same as an irreparable lacuna.

Conclusion: Such recall or summoning is permissible even after arguments are over, so long as judgment has not been pronounced.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier view holding such recall impermissible lays down the correct law.

Analysis: The earlier view proceeded without noticing binding Supreme Court authority explaining the amplitude of section 311 and the distinction between filling a real lacuna and correcting an oversight. The Court held that technical lapses in not citing or examining material witnesses cannot override the duty to reach the truth in serious offences. The earlier view was therefore inconsistent with the governing legal principles.

Conclusion: The earlier view does not lay down the correct law and was overruled.

Final Conclusion: The power under section 311 of the Code continues until judgment is pronounced, and the Court may permit recall or summoning of witnesses whenever necessary for a just decision, subject to judicial caution and the requirements of fairness.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court retains power under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon, recall, or re-examine witnesses at any stage before pronouncement of judgment if their evidence is essential to the just decision of the case, and this power cannot be denied merely because arguments have concluded.

---