[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hansa Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 December, 2025

CRR-2795
    2795-2025                                                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

112                                                 CRR-2795-2025


Hansa Singh and others
                                                              ....Petitioners
                                          V/s
State of Punjab and another
                                                              ....Respondent
Date of decision: 12.12.2025
Date of Uploading : 12.12.2025

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate for the petitioners.
                                         *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. The petition in hand is a revision petition filed under Section

442 of BNSS laying challenge to order date dated d 01.10.2025 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge Judge Judge Special Court, Bathinda Vide the

said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused accused-petitioners petitioners for

summoning summoning/recalling five prosecution witnesses for further cross

examination.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioners has iterated that the

impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record

and is well within the limitation period. Learned counsel has further iterated

that the Court below has erroneously dismissed the application whereby the

petitioner sought summoning/recalling of material prosecution witnesses petitioners

i.e. PW-1 1 Sandeep Singh, Constable, Punjab Police, PW-5 5 Kewal Singh,

PW-7 7 Dr. Deep Singh Rattan Mittal, Ex Ex-Medical Medical Officer & Forensic

1 of 7

CRR-2795

Science Expert, PW-10 10 Sandeep Singh Bhatti, DSP City City-I, I, Bathinda (then

SHO, P.S. Nathana), PW-12 12 SI Harbans Singh, the then IO/Incharge PP

Bhucho Mandi. Learned counsel has further submitted that the entire

prosecution story hinges on the testimonies of aforesaid five witnesses,

whose further cross-examination examination is essential for a just and proper

adjudication of the case. According to learned counsel, the object behind

moving the application under under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is neither to delay the

proceedings nor to fill any lacuna but solely to bring out the truth.

Furthermore, the recalling of the these five prosecution witnesses is

necessary as well as imperative as their further cross cross-examination is crucial

to clarify material aspects which go to the root of the matter and without ithout

such examination, the defence would be gravely prejudiced. Learned

counsel has emphasized that Section 311 Cr.P.C. embodies a legislative

mandate that no valuable evidence should remain excluded due to

inadvertence, mistake or ambiguity in the testimony of witnesses. The

power under this provision exists to prevent failure of justice and to ensure

completeness of the record. Moreover, the Article 21 of the Constitution

guarantees rantees the right to a fair trial which necessarily includes the right to an

effective cross-examination cross and denial of an opportunity to cross cross-examine examine

material witnesses strikes at the very root of this constitutional protection.

Learned counsel has further further contended that further cross-examination examination will

not cause any prejudice to the prosecution prosecution. Learned counsel has further

contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate the true scope of

Section 311 Cr.P.C. as the provision confers wide powers on the Court to

summon or recall any person at any stage of the trial if his evidence appears

2 of 7

CRR-2795

to be essential to the just decision of the case. Learned counsel has further

submitted that the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable in law, being

based on mere mere presumptions and conjectures. It is argued that the reasoning

of the Court below that the petitioners petitioner weere trying to delay the proceedings

is misconceived as the delay, if any, was occasioned only on account of the

evasive conduct of the witness (which are sought to be recalled herein).

herein)

Moreover, the Court below has dismissed the application without properly

considering the facts and circumstances of the case. On the strength of

aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

3. Since this Court has proceeded to adjudicate upon the petition

in hand,, at the limine stage and having regard to the nature of order being

passed, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the

respondents or to call for their reply as no ffurther urther proceedings or pleadings

are required for the adjudication of the lis in hand.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have

perused the available record.

5. Before further delving into the rival contentions as also the

meritss of the case in hand, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment

passed by this Court in case titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab

and another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178;

24178 relevant whereof reads as under:

under:-

"8.4 As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge:

(I) The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows:

(i) The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence vidence "

"appears appears to be essential to the just decision of the case."

(ii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court even when cross-examination examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a

3 of 7

CRR-2795

Court order. Such exercise of power by the C Court ourt cannot be construed as the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order.

(iii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even allow further examination/cross-examination examination of a witness at instance of the prosecution/accused.

(iv) A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such Court is seized of the matter.

(v) A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on an application made by a party to lis or on its own volition.

(vi) Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination/re-examination examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection. (II) No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to llay ay down any such exhaustive guide-lines as every case is sui generis in terms of factual conspectus. (III) Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power."

6. The short question that arises for cogitation before this Court is

whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the application of the

petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning five witnesses i.e. petitioners

PW-1 1 Sandeep Singh, Constable, Punjab Police, PW-5 Kewal Singh, PW-7 PW

Dr. Deep Singh Rattan Mittal, Ex-Medical Ex Medical Officer & Forensic Science

Expert, PW-10 PW 10 Sandeep Singh Bhatti, DSP City City-I, Bathinda (then SHO, P.S.

Nathana), PW-12 12 SI Harbans Singh, the then IO/Incharge PP Bhucho

Mandi. The petitioners stand trial in FIR No. 0217 dated 04.12.2023

registered under Sections 302, 34 IPC at Police Station Nathana, District

Bathinda. During the course course of the trial, all five witnesses mentioned above

have already been examined and even cross cross-examined examined by the earlier counsel 4 of 7

CRR-2795

appearing for the accused. Subsequently, the petitioners changed their

counsel and engaged Sh. G.S. Khadial, Advocate, who moved the

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. asserting that certain material

questions regarding delay in FIR, motive, presence and conduct of witnesses

and aspects of investigation were not adequately put during earlier cross-

cross

examination. The application ion in hand has been opposed by the prosecution

on the ground that the same was filed only to delay the trial. Considering the

rival contentions and the available record, the Court below dismissed the

application by holding that all witnesses had been duly cross-examined examined at

length, that the PW-11 (complainant) was cross cross-examined examined over three dates

and change of counsel was no ground to recall the aforesaid witnesses.

Furthermore, no specific prejudice has been demonstrated which would

justify cross examination examination of the aforesaid witnesses and the application in

hand has been seemingly filed only as a dilatory tactic to fill the lacunas. In

the considered opinion of this Court, no justifiable ground has been shown

warranting interference by this Court in the rev revisional jurisdiction. Though

Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon any person as a witness

or recall and re-examine re examine any person already examined, if his evidence

appears to the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. But at

the same time, this discretion must be exercised judiciously to prevent

miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, it is equally settled that the power

under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be permitted to be misused for filling up

lacunae in the defence.

7. In the present resent case, it is not disputed that all five witnesses

were thoroughly examined and cross-examined.

cross examined. PW PW-1 1 alone was cross-

cross

5 of 7

CRR-2795

examined over three different dates and the remaining witnesses were also

questioned at length. The petitioners have not pointed out aany ny specific

omission or contradiction that needs clarification. Furthermore, the

petitioners have only made a general claim that "some important questions

were not asked," but in the considered opinion of this Court such vague and

unsupported statements cannot cannot justify recalling witnesses. Moreover, a

change of counsel is also not a valid or legal ground to seek recall of

witnesses. A profitable reference in this regard is made to the judgment

rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Neha Begum and others vs.

The State of Assam and another, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No.3910/2024 which clearly held that mere change of lawyer or broad

allegations are not enough to reopen evidence. Allowing witnesses to be

recalled at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. would unnecessarily delay the

trial and would, in effect, give the accused an opportunity to correct or fill

gaps in their defence, which the law does not permit. The right to a fair trial

is not one-sided one and if the evidence is allowed to be reope reopened ned again and

again, it will seriously hamper the trial and defeat the purpose of timely

justice. In the case in hand, the Court ourt below has exercised its discretion

properly and in accordance with law. Thus, the requirement of ""essential essential for

just decision"

decision under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not established. Considering onsidering the

factual matrix of the present case, this Court finds no justifiable ground to

recall the prosecution witnesses already examined and cross cross-examined examined at

length. Entertaining application under Sec Section tion 311 Cr.P.C. at this belated

stage would not serve the ends of justice but rather frustrates the mandate of

6 of 7

CRR-2795

speedy trial. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any error

in the impugned order passed by the Court below.

8. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:

(i) The impugned order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Judge Judge, Special Court, Bathinda does not suffer from

any illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference. The instant

revision petition is hereby dismissed.

(ii) Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove

shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the Court below shall

proceed further, in accordance with law, without being infl influenced uenced

therefrom.