S.311 CrPC Power Can’t Be Invoked To Fill Up Lacunae In Defence: Supreme Court

Case Name: THE STATE OF TRIPURA V. PANNA AHMED
Petition Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2848 OF 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 584
Date of Judgment: 26.05.2026
Coram: HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. DIPANKAR DUTTA & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Relevant Provisions: Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

INTRODUCTION
The present dispute centered around whether Section 311 CrPC can be invoked to recall a prosecutrix for further cross-examination after completion of testimony and substantial progress of trial, particularly when such recall is sought belatedly and appears aimed at filling lacunae in the defence. The Supreme Court held that Section 311 CrPC, though wide in scope, cannot be used to fill lacunae in the defence or reopen concluded cross-examination after inordinate delay. Finding that the prosecutrix had already been extensively examined and that relevant material was available throughout the trial, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the Trial Court’s rejection of recall, and directed expeditious completion of the trial.

FACTS
The present appeal arose from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Tripura at Agartala in a Criminal Petition, whereby the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and permitted the recall of the prosecutrix for further cross-examination. The case originated from an FIR registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the prosecutrix alleging offences under Sections 342, 376(1), and 506 IPC against the respondent-accused.

During trial, the prosecutrix was examined, cross-examined, re-examined, and re-cross-examined on multiple occasions between 2018 and 2019. Nearly four years after completion of her testimony, the respondent filed another application under Section 311 CrPC seeking her recall for further cross-examination on the basis of certain aspects allegedly arising from the Call Detail Records of the parties. The Trial Court rejected the application, observing that it was highly belated and appeared intended to delay proceedings pending since 2017. However, the High Court allowed the respondent’s plea and directed further examination of the prosecutrix, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The State argued that repeated cross-examination opportunities were already granted, and the delayed Section 311 CrPC application merely sought to fill lacunae and prolong trial. Per Contra, the Respondent contended that overlooked questions arising from Call Detail Records were crucial for fair adjudication, and recall was necessary to discover the truth.

ISSUE
Whether the power under Section 311 CrPC can be exercised to recall a prosecutrix for further cross-examination after completion of her testimony and substantial progress of trial, particularly when such recall is sought after inordinate delay and appears aimed at filling lacunae in the defence case?

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court at the outset examined the scope and ambit of Section 311 CrPC, which empowers courts to summon, recall, and re-examine witnesses if such evidence is essential for a just decision of the case. Referring to precedents including Natasha Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [(2013) 5 SCC 741]; and Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [(2019) 14 SCC 328] among others, the Court reiterated that although the power under Section 311 CrPC is wide, it must be exercised cautiously, judicially, and only to meet the ends of justice. The provision cannot be invoked to fill lacunae, delay proceedings, or subject witnesses to unnecessary hardship.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the High Court erred in allowing recall of the prosecutrix for further cross-examination. It noted that the prosecutrix had already undergone extensive examination, cross-examination, re-examination, and re-cross-examination on multiple dates between 2018 and 2019, and the defence had been granted sufficient opportunity to challenge her testimony. The application seeking recall was filed after an unexplained delay of nearly four years, at a stage when nineteen prosecution witnesses had already been examined and the trial had substantially progressed.

The Court further observed that the Call Detail Records relied upon by the defence were already part of the chargesheet and available throughout the trial, thereby negating the plea of inadvertence. It observed that permitting recall in such circumstances would merely enable the defence to fill gaps in its case. The Court also emphasised the hardship caused to victims in sensitive criminal cases when repeatedly summoned for cross-examination. It held that the Trial Court had rightly rejected the application and set aside the High Court’s order, restoring the Trial Court’s decision, and directed expeditious conclusion of the trial by the end of the year.

CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled position that Section 311 CrPC is an enabling provision intended to aid the court in arriving at a just decision, but it cannot be used as a tool by either party to reopen settled evidence or to cure deficiencies in their own case. The Court held that the respondent’s application, filed after an inordinate delay and at a highly advanced stage of trial, was clearly an attempt to fill lacunae in the defence rather than to assist the court in discovering the truth. It emphasised the earlier exhaustive cross-examinations of the prosecutrix and the availability of Call Detail Records throughout the trial to conclude that no ‘essentiality’ was made out to justify recall under Section 311 CrPC. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the Trial Court’s rejection of the application, and directed expeditious completion of the trial.