Gyanendra Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

the trial Court has erroneously proceeded to dismiss the said application through the impugned order dated 21.08.2025. He prays that the 2 A482 No. 8343 of 2025 impugned order be set-aside and the applicant be granted another opportunity to cross-examine P.W.-1.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and considering his submission, this Court does not find any merit in the application as concededly all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and recall of P.W.-1 has been prayed for after a period of nearly seven years. The deposition of this witness was completed on 30.07.2018 and it is also evident from the deposition sheet of P.W.-1 that the defence had conducted his cross- examination on two dates. Though the copy of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the witness moved before the trial Court has not been placed on record, but during the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by the learned counsel that the witness is being recalled solely on the ground that the earlier defence counsel did not conduct the cross examination of the witness properly, and the application was moved on the advice of the new defence counsel representing the accused- applicant.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the sole ground raised for recalling the witness for further cross-examination is not at all sufficient, much less convincing, as many a times after recall, the witness tends to drift away from the prosecution case to throw doubt, therefore, such applications are required to be dealt with care and caution.

6. Of course, Section 311 Cr.P.C. vests extraordinary power with the trial court to summon, recall or re-examine any person or witness during any enquiry, trial or other proceedings, but such a power cannot be exercised in a routine or casual manner. In case, the trial court considering the facts and other attending circumstances of the case finds that the exercise of power vested in Section 311 Cr.P.C. is necessary in order to reach the truth, the exercise of such power would be justified. Thus, considering the sole ground raised in the application moved by the applicant seeking recall of PW-1, this Court finds that the trial court has rightly declined the request as this kind of a ground can be raised by accused person(s), with an oblique motive to delay the trial proceedings.

7. Here, it will be useful to refer the decision by the Punjab and Haryana, 3 A482 No. 8343 of 2025 High Court dated 07.04.2022 delivered in Baljinder Singh @ Gogi vs. State of Punjab [CRM-M-14140-2022], wherein, while considering the identical issue, the High Court had made the following observations:- "The cross-examination of a witness of an adverse party or a hostile witness is an art and every lawyer as an individual, may have different ways of grilling the witness in order to test the truthfulness and credibility of such deposition recorded during examination-in-chief, so, there cannot be a stereo typed questionnaire to be used by lawyer during cross-examination, as much would also depend upon the answers of the witness. Of-course the cross-examination may appear like a battle between un-equals, where a rustic witness is cross-examined by a lawyer, but the ground that the previous defence lawyer was not skillful or the new lawyer is more refined is not worth acceptance, particularly when there is no suggestion that the previous defence lawyer did not pursue the interest of accused honestly. If, such a ground is accepted for exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C this would not only add delay in conclusion of trial proceedings, but would also put extra burden upon the trial Judge to evaluate the multiple depositions of a witness. Also, the trial Courts have to be very careful while dealing with such type of prayers, and must bear in mind that many a times it has been noticed that the recalled witness retracts from the testimony recorded earlier and it results in damage to the prosecution case."

8. Thus, in view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the trial Court has considered the merits of the application in accordance with law and has rightly refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, therefore, no interference is called for.

9. Dismissed. October 8, 2025 Anurag (Manoj Bajaj,J.) ANURAG SINGH ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

the trial Court has erroneously proceeded to dismiss the said application through the impugned order dated 21.08.2025. He prays that the 2 A482 No. 8343 of 2025 impugned order be set-aside and the applicant be granted another opportunity to cross-examine P.W.-1.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and considering his submission, this Court does not find any merit in the application as concededly all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and recall of P.W.-1 has been prayed for after a period of nearly seven years. The deposition of this witness was completed on 30.07.2018 and it is also evident from the deposition sheet of P.W.-1 that the defence had conducted his cross- examination on two dates. Though the copy of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the witness moved before the trial Court has not been placed on record, but during the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by the learned counsel that the witness is being recalled solely on the ground that the earlier defence counsel did not conduct the cross examination of the witness properly, and the application was moved on the advice of the new defence counsel representing the accused- applicant.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the sole ground raised for recalling the witness for further cross-examination is not at all sufficient, much less convincing, as many a times after recall, the witness tends to drift away from the prosecution case to throw doubt, therefore, such applications are required to be dealt with care and caution.

6. Of course, Section 311 Cr.P.C. vests extraordinary power with the trial court to summon, recall or re-examine any person or witness during any enquiry, trial or other proceedings, but such a power cannot be exercised in a routine or casual manner. In case, the trial court considering the facts and other attending circumstances of the case finds that the exercise of power vested in Section 311 Cr.P.C. is necessary in order to reach the truth, the exercise of such power would be justified. Thus, considering the sole ground raised in the application moved by the applicant seeking recall of PW-1, this Court finds that the trial court has rightly declined the request as this kind of a ground can be raised by accused person(s), with an oblique motive to delay the trial proceedings.

7. Here, it will be useful to refer the decision by the Punjab and Haryana, 3 A482 No. 8343 of 2025 High Court dated 07.04.2022 delivered in Baljinder Singh @ Gogi vs. State of Punjab [CRM-M-14140-2022], wherein, while considering the identical issue, the High Court had made the following observations:- "The cross-examination of a witness of an adverse party or a hostile witness is an art and every lawyer as an individual, may have different ways of grilling the witness in order to test the truthfulness and credibility of such deposition recorded during examination-in-chief, so, there cannot be a stereo typed questionnaire to be used by lawyer during cross-examination, as much would also depend upon the answers of the witness. Of-course the cross-examination may appear like a battle between un-equals, where a rustic witness is cross-examined by a lawyer, but the ground that the previous defence lawyer was not skillful or the new lawyer is more refined is not worth acceptance, particularly when there is no suggestion that the previous defence lawyer did not pursue the interest of accused honestly. If, such a ground is accepted for exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C this would not only add delay in conclusion of trial proceedings, but would also put extra burden upon the trial Judge to evaluate the multiple depositions of a witness. Also, the trial Courts have to be very careful while dealing with such type of prayers, and must bear in mind that many a times it has been noticed that the recalled witness retracts from the testimony recorded earlier and it results in damage to the prosecution case."

8. Thus, in view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the trial Court has considered the merits of the application in accordance with law and has rightly refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, therefore, no interference is called for.

9. Dismissed. October 8, 2025 Anurag (Manoj Bajaj,J.) ANURAG SINGH ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench