2023 (8) TMI 1448 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court allows witness recall under Section 311 CrPC to clarify ambiguities and ensure fair trial

The SC allowed an appeal challenging the rejection of an application for recall of appellant as witness under Section 311 CrPC. The Court held that the ... Prayer for recall of the Appellant as a witness in the trial before the Court below for further examination has been rejected - Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- In Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan, [2019 (4) TMI 2152 - SUPREME COURT], this Court emphasized that a discretionary power like Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure is to enable the Court to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity regarding the evidence, whilst also ensuring no prejudice is caused to anyone. In Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar [2023 (8) TMI 1389 - SUPREME COURT], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court was of the opinion that Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure should be invoked when '... it is essential for the just decision of the case.' The Court finds that a case for interference has been made out. Under the peculiar facts of the present case, the request for recall of the Appellant Under Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure was justified, as at the relevant point of time in his initial deposition, there was no occasion for him to bring the relevant facts relating to similarity of data before the Court, which arose after the CFSL expert was examined. The orders of the Courts below are set aside. The application of the Appellant Under Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure for his recall to be further examined as a witness stands allowed - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:- Appeal against the rejection of the prayer for recall of the Appellant as a witness in the trial before the Court below for further examination.The judgment addressed the issue of recalling a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Appellant had filed a complaint against the Accused for stealing company data and using it to manufacture equipment. The evidence of the Appellant was recorded before the Report from the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL) could come. The CFSL expert's examination did not address the comparison of data, which was crucial to the case. The Appellant applied for his recall within five days of the CFSL expert's evidence being recorded. The Trial Court and the High Court rejected the application, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.The Appellant argued that the comparison of the two sets of data was essential to the complaint, and without it, the trial would be reduced to a farce. The delay in filing the application for recall was also contested, with the Appellant claiming it should have been counted from the date the cause of action arose, not from the first lodging of the complaint. The Respondents contended that the Appellant was engaging in dilatory tactics and should not be allowed to fill up lacunae at the current stage of the trial.The judgment cited various precedents to explain the scope and application of Section 311 of the CrPC. It highlighted that the power to recall a witness should be exercised judiciously and only for strong and valid reasons to prevent a failure of justice. The Court found that in the present case, the request for the Appellant's recall was justified as the relevant facts relating to the similarity of data emerged after the CFSL expert's examination. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts, and granted the application for the Appellant's recall for further examination as a witness within a specified timeframe to conclude the trial promptly.