Witness Recall Under Section 311 CrPC Cannot Be Used to Delay Trial or Repeatedly Cross-Examine a Victim Without Strong Reasons

Case Name: The State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed

Citation: 2026 INSC 584

Date of Judgment/Order: May 26, 2026

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Held: The Supreme Court held that although Section 311 CrPC gives wide power to a criminal court to summon, recall or re-examine witnesses at any stage, such power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only when the evidence is essential for a just decision of the case. A witness cannot be recalled merely to fill lacunae in the defence, to repair an oversight, or to delay the trial. In sensitive cases such as rape trials, courts must also consider the hardship caused to the prosecutrix if she is repeatedly called for cross-examination after already undergoing detailed examination.

Summary: The case arose from an FIR lodged in 2016 alleging offences under Sections 342, 376(1) and 506 IPC against the respondent-accused. The prosecutrix was examined and cross-examined in 2018, and thereafter, on the prosecution’s application, she was recalled, re-examined and re-cross-examined in 2019. Nearly four years later, in December 2023, the accused filed an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking to recall the prosecutrix again for further cross-examination on the basis of Call Detail Records. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the prosecutrix had already been extensively examined and that the application appeared to be an attempt to delay the trial, which had been pending for several years. The High Court, however, allowed recall. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, relying on Natasha Singh v. CBI, Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, and held that recall is not a matter of course. Since the CDRs were already part of the chargesheet and available to the defence throughout, the accused had sufficient opportunity to question the prosecutrix earlier, and no satisfactory explanation was given for the long delay.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Tripura, set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 14.03.2024, and restored the Trial Court’s order dated 06.02.2024 rejecting the accused’s application under Section 311 CrPC. The Court held that recalling the prosecutrix again after repeated earlier cross-examinations would cause unjustified hardship and further delay an already prolonged rape trial. Pending applications were disposed of, and the Trial Court was directed, subject to its convenience, to conclude the trial by the end of the year.