Recall of witness to correct material contradiction upheld where clarification was essential for a just criminal trial decision.

A private party's limited role in a sessions trial under Section 301 CrPC does not prevent the court from acting under Section 311 CrPC where already examined evidence is essential for a just decision. When a statutory witness's oral testimony is plainly inconsistent with his own recorded proceeding, the criminal court should not remain passive and may, in appropriate cases, recall the witness to clarify the contradiction and avoid miscarriage of justice. The distinction between a correctable error and a true prosecution lacuna was applied, and the omission here was treated as an error capable of correction. The refusal to recall the witness was therefore unsustainable, and the trial court was directed to recall him and permit further cross-examination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the victim/informant could seek recall of a witness to correct a material contradiction between the witness's oral testimony and the contemporaneous identification parade record; and whether the trial court and High Court were right in refusing to invoke the court's power to recall the witness.

Analysis: Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits only a limited role to a private person in a sessions trial, but that limitation does not prevent the court from acting under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the evidence of a witness already examined appears essential for a just decision. The Court held that a criminal court cannot remain a passive spectator when a statutory witness, especially a judicial officer, gives oral evidence that is plainly inconsistent with his own recorded proceeding. The court has wide power, and in appropriate cases a duty, to recall the witness and require clarification so that the record is kept accurate and no miscarriage of justice occurs. The distinction between a mere error or oversight and a true lacuna in the prosecution was also applied, and the omission here was treated as an error capable of correction in the interest of justice.

Conclusion: The refusal to recall PW-18 was unsustainable, and the victim's request to have the contradiction confronted through further examination was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and the trial court was directed to recall the witness, permit appropriate cross-examination on the contradiction, allow written arguments, and proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a material inconsistency in the oral testimony of a statutory witness comes to the court's notice and the evidence appears essential to a just decision, the criminal court must use its power to recall and clarify the evidence rather than refuse relief on a narrow reading of the private party's role.

---