[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Jaga @ Jagabandhu Satapathy vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 3 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.13 of 2026
Jaga @ Jagabandhu Satapathy .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Kshirod Kumar Pahil, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC (for O.P. No.1)
Mr. G. Chandra, Adv.
Mr. R. Panigrahi, Adv.
(for O.P No.2)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order No. ORDER
03. 03.02.2026
1.
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the
inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS with a
prayer to quash the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum-J.M.F.C., Baripal in G.R. Case
No.78 of 2016, whereby the application of the Petitioner under Section
311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the informant i.e. P.W.1 for further cross-
Signature Not examination was rejected.
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 04-Feb-2026 19:56:56
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that an application
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the Petitioner
seeking recall of P.W.1, the informant, for further cross-examination
on the ground that certain questions could not be put to her during
her examination on 15.01.2018. The said application was rejected by
the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 17.11.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
P.W.1-informant is a material witness and the fate of the trial
substantially depends upon her testimony. He further contended that
the allegations in the case are primarily to be adjudicated on the basis
of evidence of P.W.1 and, therefore, her testimony assumes a lot of
importance. Though P.W.1 was examined and cross-examined on
15.01.2018, certain relevant and crucial questions, which are necessary
for just adjudication of the case, could not be put to her during cross-
examination. He further contended that the learned trial Court has
rejected the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. without applying
of judicial mind.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that no party
can be permitted to fill up the lacuna left in cross-examination of
witness by allowing further cross-examination of the aforesaid
witness who was examined and cross-examined more than six years
ago. In view of such submissions, he prays to recall P.W.1 for further
cross-examination seeking explanation on certain questions.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that at the time
of disposal of the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the learned
trial Court failed to consider the essentiality of further cross-
examination of P.W.1 for just decision of the case. Hence, he prayed
that the impugned order be set aside and the learned trial Court be
directed to recall the said witness i.e. P.W.1 for further cross-
examination.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that
the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the
impugned order dated 17.11.2025. He further submitted that after
examining the conduct of the Petitioner, the learned trial Court has
rightly rejected the application of the Petitioner filed under Section
311 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 17.11.2025. He further submitted that
defence cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna left in the cross-
examination of the witness by recalling the witness for further cross-
examination. On the above grounds, learned counsel for the State
contended that the present application is devoid of merit and
accordingly, the same should be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has also advanced
similar arguments to those of the learned counsel for the State.
10. The nature and scope of the power exercised by the Court under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been elaborately considered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Raja Ram Prasad Vs. State of Bihar
and another1, wherein it was held that the power under Section 311
Cr.P.C. must be exercised only in order to meet the ends of justice for
strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care,
caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair
trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and,
therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons
2013 (14) SCC 461
concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a
human right. There is no doubt in the legal position that Court has to
bear in mind the essentiality of evidence for just decision of the case
while deciding the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. as held by
the Apex Court in catena of judgments and also the duration of a case
cannot displace the specific requirements of the just decision after
taking all the necessary material evidence on record.
11. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that P.W.1 has
duly examined, cross-examined and discharged on 15.01.2018 and
thereafter, the case was posted for evidence of the I.O. The questions
proposes to be put to the witness at this stage appear to be aimed at
filling the lacuna of the defence case. It is also evident that sufficient
opportunity was afforded to the defence to cross-examine the
informant at the time of examination.
12. It is settled law that opportunity of fair trial has to be given to the
accused but it should also be kept in mind that the interest of the
victim and society at large should not be ignored. In the present case,
P.W.1 was cross-examined by the learned defence counsel in the year
2018 and due and fair opportunity was granted. Permitting recall of
the witness after more than six years, solely to cover up omissions in
cross-examination, would amount to allowing the defence to fill up
lacunae, which is impermissible in law. In such circumstances, no
ground is made out to permit/recall the witness.
13. Needless to say that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
(corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS) has to be exercised sparingly
when there is apparent error or gross injustice would be caused in the
view taken by the learned trial Court. In the present case, fair
opportunity was granted to the Petitioner and opportunity cannot be
given to meet out the loopholes in evidence by way of Section 311 of
Cr.P.C., which may cause prejudice to either of the parties.
14. In view of the above discussions, this Court does not find any
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and is not inclined to
interfere with the same.
15. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.
16. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sipun
