Criminal Procedure Code

Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar

(2013) 14 SCC 461

Facts

The case arose from a dispute concerning the use of land and a latrine.
The informant, examined as PW-9, had initially alleged that the accused fired at him with a country-made pistol.
During trial, PW-9 substantially changed his version.
He stated that:
no shot had been fired;
he had fallen into a latrine pit;
and certain other prosecution witnesses were not present.
He was consequently treated as hostile.
More than a year later, after another dispute with the accused’s family, PW-9 applied under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall and re-examination.
He claimed that his earlier trial statement had been made because of threats and coercion.
The trial court rejected the request.
The High Court, without effectively hearing the accused, allowed recall through a brief order.
The accused challenged that direction before the Supreme Court. ( )

When may a court recall or re-examine a witness under Section 311 CrPC?
Whether recall may be used to allow a witness to replace one sworn version with another.

Section 311 contains two parts:
the court may summon, examine, recall or re-examine a person at any stage;
the court shall do so where the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.
The power is extremely wide but must be exercised judicially.
The court must consider whether the proposed evidence:
is necessary for discovering the truth;
will clarify a material issue;
is bona fide;
and can be received without unfairly prejudicing either side.
Section 311 cannot be used:
capriciously;
to fill an obvious lacuna;
to repair damage caused by a witness’s deliberate testimony;
or to permit repeated changes of version.
The corresponding BNSS provision is Section 348. ( )

PW-9 had been fully examined and cross-examined.
His trial version was clear and substantially contradicted the original prosecution case.
His later request did not seek clarification of an accidental omission.
It sought permission to state that:
his earlier evidence was false;
he had been threatened;
and the original accusation was true.
The timing was important.
The recall request followed a fresh dispute between the parties, which created a real possibility that the application was influenced by later hostility.
The High Court did not adequately consider:
the long delay;
the complete nature of the earlier testimony;
the prejudice to the accused;
or the reason for the witness’s repeated changes.
It also allowed the application without giving the accused a meaningful opportunity to oppose it.
The Supreme Court emphasised that discovering the truth does not mean permitting a witness to endlessly rewrite sworn testimony.
Courts must protect the integrity of the trial.
PW-9’s earlier and later versions could be assessed on the existing record, including his hostile status.
Section 311 was not necessary merely to give the prosecution another opportunity to repair its case.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the trial court’s refusal to recall PW-9.
It laid down detailed principles governing Section 311.
The Court held that the power exists to secure a just decision, but cannot be exercised merely because one party wishes to overcome an unfavourable answer already given on oath. ( )