SATBIR SINGH [Appellant(s)] Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. [Respondent(s)]

CRIMINAL APPEAL arising OUT OF SLP(Crl.) No.1258/2022
(2JB, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and S.V.N. BHATTI JJ., delivered by AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.)

Facts: The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.12.2021 in CRMM No.40058/2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at by which the prayer for recall of the appellant as a witness in the trial before the Court below for further examination has been rejected.

Issue: Whether the rejection of appellant’s application under section 311 Cr.P.C by the high court justified in law?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no previous occasion for him during the course of the trial to put any question with regard to comparison of data as the CFSL expert had clearly taken a stand that he had not submitted any report with regard to the comparison of the two sets of data. It was submitted that the comparison of the two sets of data was the main essence of the complaint and without the same, the trial itself would be reduced to a farce. He further submitted that the courts erred in reckoning the delay counting it from the date of first lodging of the complaint though the same should have been considered from the date the cause of action arose i.e., on 20.08.2021, and the application was filed on 25.08.2021.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:

Learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 9 submitted that the appellant is only indulging in dilatory tactics as he has every opportunity to make submissions, as he deems fit, during arguments which are yet to be concluded. Learned counsel further contented that the appellant cannot be, and should not be allowed to, fill up the lacunae left in the earlier round, at the current stage.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and set aside the impugned order, thereby allowing the application of the appellant under Section 311, CrPC for his recall to be further examined as a witness stands. It was held that, “if opportunity is given for re-examination, respondents no.2 to 9 will not be prejudiced as they will have ample opportunity to cross-examine the appellant.”

The court reiterated that, “It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.”