Finality in criminal trials bars late recall of prosecution witness to cure omission in marking documents

A criminal trial should not ordinarily be reopened at the fag end to let the prosecution recall a witness merely to mark documents that were omitted earlier. Where the prosecution evidence had been closed and the accused's statements were nearly complete, the principle of finality in criminal trials assumes significance, and the prosecution cannot be allowed to cure its own default on grounds of convenience or fairness. The accused had a legitimate objection to such reopening. The order permitting recall of the witness and reopening of evidence was held unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether, at the stage when the prosecution evidence had been closed and the accused statements were nearly completed, the Magistrate could permit recall of a prosecution witness and reopen the evidence for marking documents as exhibits.

Analysis: The order was passed after the trial had substantially progressed over several years and after the prosecution had already examined the witness in question. The request to recall the witness was not founded on the subsequent availability of new evidence, but on the omission to mark documents earlier. In such circumstances, the principle of finality in criminal trials assumes significance, and the prosecution cannot be permitted to cure its own default at the fag end of the trial merely on the plea of convenience or fairness. The accused had a legitimate objection to reopening the case after the prosecution had closed its evidence.

Conclusion: The order permitting recall of the witness and reopening of the evidence was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

---