Right to cross-examination is part of fair trial; denial of opportunity justified recall of witness for justice.

The right to cross-examine is an integral part of fair trial, fair hearing, and natural justice, and closure of that opportunity in the absence of the accused and counsel was treated as a denial of effective defence. The court noted that cross-examination tests witness veracity and cannot be denied without due opportunity. It further held that section 311 CrPC gives wide but judicious power to recall a witness where needed for a just decision, and refusal to do so would perpetuate an earlier unfair closure. The revision was allowed and the petitioners were granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether closure of the complainant's cross-examination in the absence of the accused and counsel, without affording an effective opportunity, violated the right to fair trial and fair hearing; (ii) Whether the refusal to recall the witness under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified.

Issue (i): Whether closure of the complainant's cross-examination in the absence of the accused and counsel, without affording an effective opportunity, violated the right to fair trial and fair hearing.

Analysis: The right to cross-examine is treated as an integral part of a fair trial and is protected by the guarantee of life and personal liberty. Cross-examination is the accepted means to test the veracity of a witness and to discredit testimony given in examination-in-chief. On the record, the petitioners had not cross-examined the witness at all, and the impugned closure was passed when the accused and counsel were absent. In those circumstances, the resulting denial of opportunity was held to be inconsistent with fair hearing and natural justice.

Conclusion: The closure of cross-examination was unjustified and amounted to denial of fair trial and fair hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to recall the witness under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified.

Analysis: Section 311 confers wide power on the court to summon, recall, and re-examine a witness whenever such evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The power is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously and with circumspection, and it cannot be used arbitrarily or for filling up a lacuna. Although the petitioners had earlier failed to avail opportunities, the prior closure order itself having been passed behind their back and having infringed fair trial rights, the refusal to invoke section 311 was held to perpetuate the injustice caused by that earlier order.

Conclusion: The refusal to recall the witness under section 311 was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioners were granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witness before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to cross-examination forms part of the constitutional guarantee of fair trial, and where denial of opportunity has occurred in a manner inconsistent with fair hearing, the court should exercise its power under section 311 to secure the just decision of the case.

---