Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Order Allowing Recall of Complainant Under Section 311 Cr.P.C.; Finds Clarificatory Evidence Essential for Just Decision
Case Name: Raj Veer Singh vs. State of Haryana & Another
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-39616-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash the trial court’s order allowing recall of the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court held that recalling the witness for the limited purpose of clarifying the father’s name of the accused did not prejudice the defence, constituted essential clarificatory evidence, and fell squarely within the wide discretionary powers of the trial court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasised that such power exists to ensure a fair trial and may be exercised at any stage if the proposed evidence is necessary for a just decision.
Summary: The complainant had lodged FIR No. 329 dated 15.10.2022 alleging offences under Sections 323, 325, 307, 452, 506 IPC. Investigation concluded with a challan, and the prosecution cited 14 witnesses. Nine witnesses were examined when the complainant moved two applications: one for alteration of charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C., and another under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW-6 for a limited clarification of the accused’s father’s name.
The petitioner contended that PW-6 was already examined-in-chief, the recall was sought at the tail end of the trial, and the application was a tactic to fill lacunae. He argued that the complainant, being a practicing lawyer, was fully aware of facts at the time of deposition and that permitting recall would cause serious prejudice. He further submitted that the trial court passed the impugned order mechanically without adequate reasoning.
The State and the complainant opposed the petition, submitting that Section 311 Cr.P.C. grants wide powers to the Court to summon or recall witnesses at any stage if their evidence is essential for a just decision. They argued that the recall sought only minor clarification, arose from a clerical or typographical error, did not introduce new facts, and carried no element of prejudice to the accused. They further contended that the accused retained full right to cross-examine PW-6 on the limited issue.
The High Court referred to its earlier decision in Karamjit Singh v. State of Punjab, reiterating that the governing test under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is whether the proposed evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The Court also noted that even at an advanced stage of trial, if the clarification sought does not alter the prosecution’s foundational case or reopen evidence on substantive issues, recall is permissible.
Decision: The High Court upheld the trial court’s order allowing recall of PW-6, holding that the clarification sought neither changed the substratum of the prosecution case nor prejudiced the accused. The recall was restricted to a narrow factual clarification and the accused retained full opportunity for cross-examination on that point. Concluding that the trial court exercised its discretion correctly and for advancing the ends of justice, the High Court dismissed the petition. It clarified that the observations in the order would not affect the merits of the trial.