Section 311 CrPC permits further cross-examination when later evidence creates a fresh need for confrontation and defence.

Section 311 CrPC is to be exercised to advance justice and secure a fair opportunity of defence; where additional prosecution witnesses are introduced after the complainant has already been cross-examined, prior cross-examination does not by itself bar further cross-examination. A change of counsel is not an inflexible bar where the circumstances justify a liberal approach. The application should have been allowed, and the petitioner was entitled to one effective opportunity to further cross-examine the complainant and the additional witness.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to recall the complainant and the additional witness for further cross-examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint evidence had been supplemented by additional witnesses introduced at the instance of the complainant, and the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity to further cross-examine the complainant after that additional testimony emerged. The Court held that the power under Section 311 is to be exercised to advance justice and to secure a fair opportunity of defence, and that a prior cross-examination does not, by itself, bar further cross-examination where subsequent material has come on record. The Court further held that change of counsel is not an inflexible bar and that the facts of the case required a liberal approach in the interest of justice.

Conclusion: The application ought to have been allowed, and the petitioner was entitled to one effective opportunity to further cross-examine the complainant and the additional witness.

Ratio Decidendi: Where subsequent evidence introduced at the instance of one party creates a fresh need for confrontation, Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be applied liberally to secure a fair trial and an effective opportunity of defence.

---