Recall and summoning of witnesses under criminal procedure must serve truth, while preserving the accused's right to rebut fresh evidence.

Section 311 CrPC confers a wide power to recall, re-examine, or summon witnesses at any stage, and that power is mandatory where the evidence appears essential to a just decision. It must be exercised judicially to discover the truth, but not to fill gaps in the prosecution case or cause unfair prejudice. Where fresh evidence is admitted against the accused, fairness and natural justice require a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine and rebut it. On the facts discussed, the witnesses were relevant and no prejudice was shown, so recall and summoning were properly allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court could permit recall of an already examined witness and summon additional witnesses under the provision corresponding to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the defence evidence and arguments had concluded, and whether the accused was entitled to a fair opportunity to cross-examine and rebut such fresh evidence.

Analysis: The provision is in two parts: the first confers a wide discretionary power to summon, examine, recall, or re-examine witnesses at any stage, while the second makes it obligatory to do so when the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The governing principle is discovery of truth and administration of justice, but the power must be used judicially, not capriciously, and not to fill up lacunae or cause unfair prejudice. Where fresh evidence is admitted against the accused, fairness and the rule of natural justice require that he be given a reasonable opportunity to rebut it. The Court also held that, on the facts, the requested witnesses were relevant to a just decision and the accused would not suffer prejudice by their examination.

Conclusion: The request to recall one witness and summon two additional witnesses was validly allowed, and the accused had to be given an opportunity to cross-examine and adduce rebuttal evidence.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order suffered from no illegality or perversity warranting interference, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal court may, at any stage, recall or summon witnesses if their evidence is necessary for a just decision of the case, but whenever such fresh evidence is brought on record, the accused must be afforded a fair opportunity to rebut it; the power cannot be exercised to fill gaps in the prosecution case or to cause unfair prejudice.

---