Recall of witness under Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to fill gaps in prosecution evidence or secure late identification unfairly.

Section 311 CrPC confers a wide power to recall a witness, but it must be exercised judicially only when the evidence is essential for a just decision. The provision cannot be used to fill a prosecutorial lacuna, cure an inherent weakness, or give the prosecution an unfair advantage. Where recall of the sole occurrence witness was sought at the fag end of trial solely to secure identification of the accused, after the witness had already failed to identify him and no delay was explained, the request was prejudicial to the accused and contrary to trial fairness. The order permitting recall was set aside and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution could be permitted to recall the sole occurrence witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the limited purpose of identifying the accused.

Analysis: The power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is wide, but it is to be exercised judicially and only when the witness's evidence is essential for a just decision. The provision cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution case, to cure an inherent weakness, or to confer an unfair advantage on the prosecution. Recalling the witness here was sought at the fag end of the trial, after the witness had already failed to identify the petitioner despite a specific question on identity being put to her. The application did not explain the delay, and recalling the witness only to secure identification would cause prejudice to the accused and upset the fairness of the trial.

Conclusion: The recall of PW1 was not justified, and the order allowing the application was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The application for recall of the witness was dismissed, and the criminal miscellaneous case was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Recall of a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be allowed merely to fill a prosecutorial lacuna or to obtain identification evidence at a late stage when it would prejudice the accused and is not shown to be essential for a just decision.

---