“Fair Trial Cannot Be Limitlessly Stretched in Accused’s Favour”: Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Plea to Recall Witnesses Five Years After Cross-Examination

Case Name: Subhash Singh v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 7 September 2026

Citation: CRM-M-50425-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, confers wide discretionary powers upon a court to summon, examine, recall or re-examine a witness whose evidence is essential for the just decision of a case. However, this power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or merely because an accused subsequently believes that the earlier cross-examination should have been conducted differently.

Where a witness has already been subjected to full and effective cross-examination, recall cannot ordinarily be permitted solely on the ground that the defence counsel failed to put certain allegedly relevant questions. The competence of counsel chosen or accepted by a litigant is normally presumed, and dissatisfaction with the manner in which cross-examination was conducted does not, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground for reopening concluded evidence.

The Court emphasised that the concept of a fair trial is not confined exclusively to protecting the interests of the accused. It equally encompasses the rights and interests of the victim, the prosecution and society. Fair-trial rights cannot be limitlessly stretched in favour of the accused, and courts must maintain an appropriate balance between all stakeholders while exercising the power to recall witnesses.

The Court further held that an application seeking recall after an unexplained delay of five years, particularly when the trial is nearing conclusion, must be scrutinised with considerable caution. Where the accused can still prove the proposed defence through documentary evidence during the defence stage, recalling prosecution witnesses is neither essential nor necessary for arriving at a just decision.

Summary: The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to challenge the order dated 17 August 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. By the impugned order, the trial court had dismissed his application under Section 348 of the BNSS seeking recall and further cross-examination of two material prosecution witnesses in a murder trial arising from FIR No. 534 dated 24 December 2017, registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar.

Following completion of the investigation, a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented against the petitioner and four other accused. The complainant, Ramesh Kumar, was examined as PW-12, while Rajesh was examined as PW-14.

The petitioner initially engaged an advocate who cross-examined PW-1 to PW-11 but subsequently became critically ill and passed away. Another advocate thereafter represented the petitioner. The petitioner later expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of his defence and requested appointment of a legal-aid counsel. That request was accepted, and the legal-aid counsel cross-examined PW-12 and PW-14.

The petitioner subsequently sought recall of PW-12 and PW-14 on the ground that the legal-aid counsel had failed to question them about the alleged enmity and pending litigation between the petitioner and his co-accused brother, Sanjay. According to the petitioner, this evidence would undermine the prosecution’s allegation of a common motive for committing the murder.

The High Court considered the principles governing recall of witnesses laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and Another, (2013) 14 SCC 461. It observed that the power to recall a witness must be exercised to discover the truth and prevent a failure of justice, but only where the proposed evidence is genuinely essential for deciding the case. The discretion must be exercised judicially, with care, caution and circumspection.

The Court also relied upon State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar and Others, 2016 (4) RCR (Criminal) 154, wherein the Supreme Court disapproved the recall of prosecution witnesses merely because defence counsel had omitted to put certain questions during cross-examination. The High Court noted that although courts should adopt a liberal approach where justice requires correction of a genuine mistake, judicial magnanimity cannot be converted into unrestricted indulgence.

On examining the trial record, the Court found that PW-12 had been cross-examined on 24 February 2020 and PW-14’s cross-examination had concluded on 15 February 2021. Both witnesses had been cross-examined by the legal-aid counsel appointed at the petitioner’s own request after he complained about his previous representation. The application seeking their recall was filed approximately five years after their evidence had concluded and when the trial was nearing completion.

The only ground advanced for recall was that certain questions concerning the petitioner’s alleged enmity and litigation with co-accused Sanjay had not been put to the witnesses. The High Court held that this omission did not justify recalling witnesses who had already undergone proper cross-examination. Since the defence evidence was yet to commence, the petitioner remained free to produce documentary evidence concerning the alleged litigation and strained relations with the co-accused.

The Court also approved the trial court’s concern that recalling witnesses after such a prolonged period carried the possibility that they might have been won over. It observed that parties cannot be permitted to pollute the process of justice under the guise of securing a further opportunity for cross-examination.

The authorities relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished as having been decided on their individual facts. The High Court found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s refusal to recall the witnesses.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, refusing to recall PW-12 and PW-14 for further cross-examination under Section 348 of the BNSS. The Court held that the petitioner had already received a full and effective opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and could establish the alleged litigation and enmity with his co-accused through documentary evidence during the defence stage.