CHABAN PANDURANG PACHARE AND OTHERS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO PS TQ RAJURA DIST CHANDRAPUR

High Court of Bombay, Nagpur (Criminal)
2025:BHC-NAG:11221

Discusses the scope and limitations of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the principles governing the recall of witnesses.

List of Laws: The Code of Criminal Procedure; The Constitution of India; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; The Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Legal Discussion:

  1. The Code of Criminal Procedure: The judgment extensively discusses Section 311 Cr.P.C., concerning the power of the Court to examine witnesses at any stage. The petitioners sought to recall witnesses under this section, arguing that contradictions in their evidence were not adequately addressed during cross-examination. The court, however, rejected this application, emphasizing that Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and not to fill lacunae in the prosecution's case. The court cited the Supreme Court's guidelines on Section 311 Cr.P.C. from Rajaram Prasad Yadav VS State of Bihar and Another, (2013) 14 SCC 461, highlighting that the power should be used to arrive at a just decision, not for speculative presentation of facts. The court also referred to A.G. VS. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr., (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1187-1188 of 2015), which lays down important guidelines regarding Section 311. The significance of this interpretation lies in reinforcing the limitations on recalling witnesses, preventing the misuse of Section 311 Cr.P.C. to protract trials. The practical implication is that lawyers must ensure thorough cross-examination initially, as courts are hesitant to allow recall based on mere inadvertence. The key takeaway is the emphasis on judicial discretion and the need for a strong justification to recall witnesses. The judgment also mentions Section 313 Cr.P.C., which concerns recording statements of the accused, noting that the trial was at its final stage with only this remaining. This highlights the stage of the trial and the context in which the application for recalling witnesses was made. The court also mentions Section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding recording of statements of witnesses.
  2. The Constitution of India: The judgment mentions Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under which the present petition was filed. This Article grants the High Court supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts. The significance is that the petitioners invoked the High Court's power to review the lower court's decision regarding the recall of witnesses. The practical implication is that it highlights the hierarchical structure of the Indian legal system, where higher courts can correct errors of lower courts.
  3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment mentions that offences were registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, it does not elaborate on any specific section.
  4. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: The judgment mentions that offences were registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. However, it does not elaborate on any specific section.
  5. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: The judgment mentions that offences were registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, it does not elaborate on any specific section.
  6. The Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013: The judgment mentions that offences were registered under the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013. However, it does not elaborate on any specific section.
  7. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The judgment refers to Section 145 of the Evidence Act, concerning the cross-examination as to previous statements in writing. The court notes that the impugned order deals with the effect of Section 145. This is significant because the application to recall witnesses was based on alleged contradictions in their previous statements. The judgment also mentions Section 138 of the Evidence Act in the context of the Supreme Court's guidelines on Section 311 Cr.P.C.

🔒 Members Only. Become a member to read this Judgment.