MANNAN SK & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 155 · Decided: 03-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 8 S.C.R. 155 
MANNAN SK & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2014) 
JULY 03, 2014 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.311 - Power under 
- To recall a witness - Scope of - Held: The Court can recall 
A 
B 
or re-examine a witness for just decision of the case - Since 
C 
the power uls. 311 is very wide, its exercise has to be done 
with circumspection - The exercise of the power must be 
guided by the object of arriving at a just decision - It should 
not cause prejudice to the accused - Whether recall is for 
filling-up a lacuna or it is for just decision, is to be determined o 
by the Court on the facts of each case - In the facts of the 
present case, recalling is necessary and will not prejudice the 
accused - Though the witness was already recalled once, but 
that does not prevent his further recall - s. 311 does not put 
such /imitation on the Court. 
E 
In a criminal case, trying offences u/ss. 447, 326 r/w 
s.34 and s.304 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Explosive 
Substances Act, the Investigating Officers (PW 15), in his 
examination, stated that he had recorded statement of the 
deceased at the scene of offence. He was cross-
F 
examined on behalf of the accused. However, this 
statement was not brought on record. 
Prosecution moved an application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. 
for recalling the evidence of PW 15 because the 
G 
prosecution wanted to bring on record that statement. 
Trial court rejected the application. The High Court set 
aside the order of trial court and granted permission to 
recall PW 15. 
In appeal, the accusea 'contended that recalling 
H 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S,C.R. 
A PW15 after 22 years from the incident is not permissible; 
it is an attempt to fill up the lacuna and would cause 
serious prejudice to the accused. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
8 
HELD: 1. The aim of every court is to discover truth. 
Section 311 Cr.P.C. is one of many such provisions of the 
Code which strengthens the arms of a court in its effort 
to ferret out the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. It 
is couched in very wide terms. It empowers the court at 
any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under 
C the Code to summon any person as a witness or examine 
any person in attendance, though not summoned as 
witness or recall and re-examine already examined 
witness. The second part of the Section uses the word 
'shall'. It says that the court shall summon and examine 
D · or recall or re-examine any such person if his evidence 
appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the 
case. The words 'essential to the just decision of the . 
case' are the key words. The court must form an opinion 
that for the just decision of the case recall or re-
E examination of the witness is necessary. [Para 10] [162-
B-D] 
2. Since the power u/s. 311 is wide, it's exercise has 
to be done with circumspection. It is trite that wider the 
power, greater is the responsibility on the courts which 
F exercise it. The exercise of this power cannot be 
untrammeled and arbitrary but must be only guided by 
the object of arriving at a just decision. of the case. It 
should not cause prejudice to the accused. It should not 
permit the prosecution to fill-up the lacuna. Whether recall 
G of a witness is for filling-up of a lacuna or it is'for just 
decision of a case, depends on facts and· circumstances 
of each case. It is for the court to consider all the 
circumstances and decide whether the prayer for reca~I 
is genuine. [Para 10] [162-E-G] 
H 
MANNAN SK & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 157 
& ANR. 
3. In the present case, the Investigating Officer stated 
A 
in the court that he had recorded the statement of the 
deceased. Thus, this fact was known to the defence. He 
was cross-examined by the defence. Inadvertently, the 
said statement was not brought on record. After the death 
of the maker of the statement, said statement became 
B 
very vital to the prosecution. Though, the fact of the 
recording of this statement is deposed by PW15, since 
due to oversight it was not brought on record, application 
was made under Section 311, praying for recall of PW 15. 
This cannot be termed as an inherent weakness or a c 
latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. No 
material has been tried to be_ brought on record 
surreptitiously to fill-up the lacuna. [Para 14] [165-D-G] 
4. It is true that PW15 was once recalled but th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.