SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. - (1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of discrepancies in the statement of PW-1 Subham, an application was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recalling of the witness for further cross-examination. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court.
(2.) Learned Counsel submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application and in the interest of justice with the sole purpose to reach to the correct facts and conclusions, it is necessary that PW-1 Subham be allowed to recall for further cross-examination. In support of his submission, learned Counsel has relied on judgment passed by the Supreme Court reported in (2013) 14 SCC 461-Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., wherein in para 14, it has been held as under: 14. A conspicuous reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C. would show that widest of the powers have been invested with the Courts when it comes to the question of summoning a witness or to recall or re-examine any witness already examined. A reading of the provision shows that the expression any has been used as a pre-fix to Court, inquiry, trial, other proceeding, person as a witness, person in attendance though not summoned as a witness, and person already examined. By using the said expression any as a pre-fix to the various expressions mentioned above, it is ultimately stated that all that was required to be satisfied by the Court was only in relation to such evidence that appears to the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. Section 138 of the Evidence Act, prescribed the order of examination of a witness in the Court. Order of re-examination is also prescribed calling for such a witness so desired for such re-examination. Therefore, a reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 138 Evidence Act, insofar as it comes to the question of a criminal trial, the order of re-examination at the desire of any person under Section 138, will have to necessarily be in consonance with the prescription contained in Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, imperative that the invocation of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and its application in a particular case can be ordered by the Court, only by bearing in mind the object and purport of the said provision, namely, for achieving a just decision of the case as noted by us earlier. The power vested under the said provision is made available to any Court at any stage in any inquiry or trial or other proceeding initiated under the Code for the purpose of summoning any person as a witness or for examining any person in attendance, even though not summoned as witness or to recall or re-examine any person already examined. Insofar as recalling and re-examination of any person already examined, the Court must necessarily consider and ensure that such recall and re-examination of any person, appears in the view of the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore, the paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose the essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained. To put it differently, while such a widest power is invested with the Court, it is needless to state that exercise of such power should be made judicially and also with extreme care and caution.
(3.) This Court is of the firm view that for the purpose of arriving at the truth of the case, and if Counsel feels that in the circumstances, certain aspects for cross-examinations are required to be conducted of the prosecution witnesses who is important in the trial, one opportunity ought to be given for the said purpose.;