Allahabad High Court
SACHINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The trial court correctly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 311 CrPC and the revision is dismissed.
Summary
The revisionist, Sachin, filed a criminal revision challenging the Additional Session Judge's order refusing to recall witness PW‑2 for further cross‑examination under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He argued that certain points remained unaddressed and that the trial court failed to exercise its power to recall the witness, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar. The State contended that PW‑2 had already been examined in chief and cross‑examined fully, and that Section 311 permits recall only when the evidence is essential for a just decision, not merely to fill lacunae. The High Court examined the record, noting that the cross‑examination was completed on 11‑09‑2025 and the application sought recall solely to address gaps. Quoting Harendra Rai, the Court held that the trial court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in rejecting the application, as the evidence was not essential for a just decision. Accordingly, the revision was dismissed at the admission stage.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to recall a material witness under Section 311 CrPC for further cross‑examination.
- Whether Section 311 CrPC can be invoked to fill lacunae or discrepancies in a witness's statement.
- Whether the revision is maintainable in view of the Supreme Court's precedent in Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 311
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- Criminal revision
- Section 311 CrPC
- Witness recall
- Cross‑examination
- Just decision
- Procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2785 of 2026
Sachin
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Akhileshwar Pratap Singh, Santosh
Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. on the
point of admission.
The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to
allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated
02.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge
(Dacodity Affected Area), Budaun in Special Session Case No. 668 of 2020
(State Vs. Rohit and others), under Section 392 IPC and also allow the
application dated 12.01.2026 filed by the revisionist under Section 311
Cr.P.C. /348 BNSS to summon the opposite party no. 3 for re-examination.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the
P.W. 2 was examined before the learned trial court but some questions were
left unasked on the part of the accused/revisionist that was the reason an
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned trial
court to recall the witness for further cross-examination on the points
mentioned in the application, since no such evidence has come on record.
The learned trial court has rejected the application on the ground that the
witness cannot be recalled for fulfilling the discrepancies. Further submitted
that the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are conferred on the learned trial
court and also on the appellate court as well as revisional court to recall the
witness for just decision of the case but the learned trial court has failed to
exercise the jurisdiction while passing the order in question. The learned
counsel for the revisionist has relied his argument on the case decided by
CRLR No. 2785 of 2026
2
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harendra Rai Vs. State of Bihar and other,
(2023) 12 Supreme Court case 563 and request to set aside the order passed
by learned trial court and allow the revision.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this
case, the examination in chief of the P.W. 2 was recorded before the learned
trial court and full opportunity of cross examination was given to the
defence. The defence cross examined the witness in detail and the statement
was completed on 11.09.2025, thereafter present application has been moved
by the revisionist/accused to recall the witness for asking the questions on
some points. Since the full opportunity was availed by the defence for cross-
examination of the witness and it was done, therefore, the witness cannot be
re-summoned for recross-examination only for the purposes of fulfilling the
lacuna unless its re-examination or recall is not for the purposes of just
decision of the case in the opinion of the court. The learned trial court has
exercised its power lawfully and there is no any illegality in the order dated
2.2.2026 passed by learned trial court but this revision is devoid of merit.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of
record, the contents of application, order passed by learned trial court dated
02.02.2026, the statement of the witness P.W. 2 dated 11.09.2025, it appears
that the examination in chief of P.W. 2 was got recorded before the learned
trial court and an opportunity of cross examination was given to the defence.
The defence has asked the questions to the witness who has replied the
questions and cross-examination was recorded in full before the learned trial
court and it was completed. Later on, the application for recall of the same
witness has been moved by the accused/revisionsit mentioning some points
in the application to make further cross-examination on those points and
therefore requested to recall the witness and afford him further opportunity
of cross examination, which was rejected by the learned trial court vide
order dated 02.02.2026.
Para 128 of the Harendra Rai case (supra) reads as under.
128. Section 311CrPC confers wide powers on any court at any
stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code to
summon material witness or examine person present. Such person
may not be a person summoned as a witness. Power to recall and
CRLR No. 2785 of 2026
3
re-examine is also vested. The concept is that it should be
essential for the just decision of the case. The said section is
reproduced hereunder:
311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person
present.-Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other
proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or
examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a
witness, or. recall and re- examine any person already examined;
and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-
examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be
essential to the just decision of the case."
From perusal of language used in Section 311 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court
is empowered to recall the witness for examination or re-examination, if his
evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case. It is also to note
that the witness cannot be recalled to fulfill the lacuna or discrepancies in the
statement of the witness. From the statement of the P.W. 2 dated 11.09.2025,
it appears that full opportunity of cross examination was given to the defence
and it was availed and after cross examination the evidence of P.W. 2 was
completed on 11.09.2025, thereafter on 12.01.2026 the present application
has been moved to re-summon and re-cross examine the witness on some
points. Since the full opportunity was given to the defence to make cross
examination and it was availed, therefore, at this stage, there is no any
ground to recall the witness for recross examination. The counsel for the
defence asked the questions during the course of cross examination with his
skill and ability, therefore, there appears no any ground to recall the witness
for recross examination. The learned trial court has passed the order dated
12.02.2026 by exercising the jurisdiction in proper manner. There appears
no any illegality in the order passed by learned trial court but this revision
being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself.
Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.
May 6, 2026
Anurag Singh
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…