Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dheeraj Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 MCRC-59240-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
MCRC No. 59240 of 2025
(DHEERAJ KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 02-02-2026
Ms. Ruchika Gohil - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Veer Vikrant Singh - Deputy Advocate General for
respondent/State.
Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent/State submits that in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) 3910/2024 (Neha Begum and others Vs. State of Assam and another) decided on 02.09.2024, wherein in para 7 Supreme Court has noted as under:-
"7. Thus, first part of section gives a discretionary power to the Court to summon any person as a witness or to recall or re- examine the person already examined. Such a course of action is only permissible if the Court is satisfied that the prayer to recall and reexamine the witness is not made to fill in the lacuna and that the non-summoning of the witnesses would cause a serious prejudice to the accused. In this regard, we are benefitted by the judgment of Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs State of Bihar and Anr.1 wherein this Court culled out the principles to be borne in mind while exercising the power under Section 311 CrPC. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow: -
"17. From a conspectus consideration of the above decisions, while dealing with an application under Section 311 CrPC read along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, we feel the following principles will have to be borne in mind by the courts:
"17.1. Whether the court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 04-02-2026 19:34:39
2 MCRC-59240-2025 court for a just decision of a case?
17.2. The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive and speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated. 17.3. If evidence of any witness appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person.
17.4. The exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case. 17.5. The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
17.6. The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
17.7. The court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case.
7.8. The object of Section 311 CrPC simultaneously imposes a duty on the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision.
17.9. The court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered.
17.10. Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safeguard, while exercising the discretion. The court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 04-02-2026 19:34:393 MCRC-59240-2025 17.11. The court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results.
17.12. The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party.
17.13. The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party. 17.14. The power under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right.''"
It is submitted that prayer for recall of witness cannot be granted. Ms. Ruchika Gohil, learned counsel for appellant prays for two weeks time to prepare the matter, go through the judgment and address this Court.
Prayer is allowed.
List the matter after two weeks.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
sp/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 04-02-2026
19:34:39
4 MCRC-59240-2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 04-02-2026
19:34:39