Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mahadev, was the accused in C.C. No. 94/2017 pending before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapur. The case arose from an incident on 27.06.2017 when the accused allegedly entered the chamber of PW5, the Presiding Officer (Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapur), took quarrel with her regarding non-signing of a GIS bill, abused her, insisted she sign the bill, and made criminal intimidation while she was discharging public duty. On the basis of the complaint, police registered a case, investigated, and filed a charge-sheet. The Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges against the accused. During trial, PW5 was examined and cross-examined by the accused. Thereafter, the accused filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall PW5 for cross-examination through video conferencing. The trial court allowed the application by order dated 05.06.2023. The accused then filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, challenging the order. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. The court observed that PW5 had already been examined and cross-examined, and the accused had not sought to bring any new evidence on record. The court held that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only to bring on record any evidence that is essential for the just decision of the case, and not to enable a party to re-examine a witness or fill gaps in the evidence. The court found that the trial court's order was not sustainable and was liable to be quashed. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 05.06.2023, and dismissed the application filed by the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Recall of Witness - Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Power - The trial court allowed the accused's application to recall PW5 for cross-examination through video conferencing after the witness had already been examined and cross-examined. The High Court held that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to recall a witness for further cross-examination when the witness has already been cross-examined and no new evidence is sought to be brought on record. The order was quashed as it would cause prejudice to the prosecution and was not essential for the just decision of the case. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW5 for cross-examination through video conferencing after the witness had already been cross-examined.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapur in C.C. No. 94/2017, and dismissed the application filed by the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Law Points
- Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to recall a witness for further cross-examination after the witness has already been cross-examined
- unless new evidence is sought to be brought on record
- Recall of a witness for the purpose of cross-examination through video conferencing is not permissible under Section 311 Cr.P.C. when the witness has already been examined and cross-examined
- The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only to bring on record any evidence that is essential for the just decision of the case
- not to fill gaps or enable a party to re-examine a witness
