Karnataka High Court
Sri Umesh B M vs State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3008
CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17452 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. UMESH B. M.,
S/O VENKATAPPA @ MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA,
SEETHARAMA LAYOUT,
SOMANAHALLI 1ST BLOCK,
UTHARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 061.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
NO.17/7, INDIRANAGARA 2ND STAGE,
APPAREDDYPALYA,
Digitally
signed by BENGALURU CITY - 560 038
NAGAVENI
Location: (ACCUSED NO.1/PETITIONER IS IN JUDICIAL
High Court of
Karnataka CUSTODY)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVA PRASAD S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KAGGALIPURA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3008
CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C., (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2025
PASSED BY THE HONBLE IX ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU BY
REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 311 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TO RECALL THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES FROM PW-9, PW-16 AND PW-19 IN SC
NO.354/2019 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 302 OF IPC
REGISTERED BY THE KAGGALIPURA POLICE IN CRIME
NO.137/2019.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 08.12.2025 by which the concerned Court rejects an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter 'Cr.P.C' for short), seeking recall of the prosecution witnesses PW-9, PW-16 and PW-19 in S.C.No.354/2019 registered for the offence -3- NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 'IPC' for short).
2. Heard Sri.Shivaprasad S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime registered in Crime No.137/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The trial is pending in S.C.No.354/2019.
The petitioner files an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of PW-9, PW-16 and PW-19 on 29.10.2025. The application comes to be rejected on the score that it is a ruse to drag the proceedings inter alia. The petitioner-accused is before the Court seeking for the application to be allowed.
4. A perusal at the order of the concerned Court would indicate that the application has been rejected on the score that -4- NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR several opportunities had been granted to the petitioner-
accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and they cannot be recalled all over again, as this would lead to dragging of the proceedings. The petitioner is facing charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, which can lead to imprisonment for life. Therefore, the purport of Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which is to arrive at the truth, cannot be ignored. In the light of the offence being grave, one opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner for further cross-
examination of prosecution witnesses as was sought for in the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The Apex Court has interpreted Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in the case of VARSHA GARG v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1, and has held as follows:
".... .... ....
31. Having clarified that the bar under Section 301 is inapplicable and that the appellant is well placed to pursue this appeal, we now examine Section 311 of CrPC. Section 311 provides that the court "may":
(i) Summon any person as a witness or to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; and 1 (2023) 19 SCC 646 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR
(ii) Recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined.
This power can be exercised at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC. The latter part of Section 311 states that the court "shall" summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person "if his evidence appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case". Section 311 contains a power upon the court in broad terms. The statutory provision must be read purposively, to achieve the intent of the statute to aid in the discovery of truth.
32. The first part of the statutory provision which uses the expression "may" postulates that the power can be exercised at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The latter part of the provision mandates the recall of a witness by the court as it uses the expression "shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case". Essentiality of the evidence of the person who is to be examined coupled with the need for the just decision of the case constitute the touchstone which must guide the decision of the court. The first part of the statutory provision is discretionary while the latter part is obligatory.
33. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni [Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 595] while dealing with pari materia provisions of Section 540 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1898 observed : (SCC p. 279, para 16) "16. The second part of Section 540 as pointed out albeit imposes upon the court an obligation of summoning or recalling and re-examining any witness and the only condition prescribed is that the evidence sought to be obtained must be essential to the just decision of the case. When any party to the proceedings points out the desirability of some evidence being taken, then the court has to exercise its power under this provision -- either discretionary or mandatory -- depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, having in view that the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR most paramount principle underlying this provision is to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts in order to meet the requirements of justice."
34. S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. speaking for the two- Judge Bench, noted that the power is couched in the widest possible terms and calls for no limitation, either with regard to the stage at which it can be exercised or the manner of its exercise. It is only circumscribed by the principle that the "evidence to be obtained should appear to the court essential to a just decision of the case by getting at the truth by all lawful means". In that context the Court observed : (Mohanlal Shamji Soni case [Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 595] , SCC p. 280, para 18) "18. ... Therefore, it should be borne in mind that the aid of the section should be invoked only with the object of discovering relevant facts or obtaining proper proof of such facts for a just decision of the case and it must be used judicially and not capriciously or arbitrarily because any improper or capricious exercise of the power may lead to undesirable results. Further it is incumbent that due care should be taken by the court while exercising the power under this section and it should not be used for filling up the lacuna left by the prosecution or by the defence or to the disadvantage of the accused or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused or to give an unfair advantage to the rival side and further the additional evidence should not be received as a disguise for a retrial or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties."
35. Summing up the position as it obtained from various decisions of this Court, namely, Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P. [Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., (1978) 2 SCC 518 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 311] , State of W.B. v. Tulsidas Mundhra [State of W.B. v. Tulsidas Mundhra, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 413 : 1963 Supp (1) SCR 1] , Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra [Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 19 : (1967) 3 SCR 415 :
AIR 1968 SC 178] , Masalti v. State of U.P. [Masalti v. State of U.P., 1964 SCC OnLine SC 30 :
(1964) 8 SCR 133 : AIR 1965 SC 202] , Rajeswar Prasad -7- NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR Misra v. State of W.B. [Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of W.B., 1965 SCC OnLine SC 122 : (1966) 1 SCR 178 : AIR 1965 SC 1887] and Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra [Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 1 SCC 523 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 231] , the Court held : (Mohanlal Shamji Soni case [Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 :
1991 SCC (Cri) 595] , SCC p. 283, para 27) "27. The principle of law that emerges from the views expressed by this Court in the above decisions is that the criminal court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-
examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command the examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."
36. The power of the court is not constrained by the closure of evidence. Therefore, it is amply clear from the above discussion that the broad powers under Section 311 are to be governed by the requirement of justice. The power must be exercised wherever the court finds that any evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The statutory provision goes to emphasise that the court is not a hapless bystander in the derailment of justice. Quite to the contrary, the court has a vital role to discharge in ensuring that the cause of discovering truth as an aid in the realisation of justice is manifest.
37. Section 91CrPC empowers inter alia any court to issue summons to a person in whose possession or power a document or thing is believed to be, where it considers the production of the said document or thing necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC.
38. Section 91 forms part of Chapter VII CrPC which is titled "Processes to Compel the Production of Things". Chapter XVI CrPC titled "Commencement of Proceedings -8- NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR before Magistrates" includes Section 207 which provides for the supply to the accused of a copy of the police report and other documents in any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report. [ Section 207 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973--"207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents.--In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:--(i) the police report;(ii) the first information report recorded under Section 154;(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of Section 173;(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of Section 173:Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused:Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court."] Both operate in distinct spheres.
39. In the present case, the application of the prosecution for the production of the decoding registers is relatable to the provisions of Section 91CrPC. The decoding registers are sought to be produced through the representatives of the cellular companies in whose custody or possession they are found. The decoding registers are a relevant piece of evidence to establish the co-relationship between the location of the accused and the cellphone tower. The reasons which weighed with the High Court and the trial court in dismissing the application are extraneous to the power which is conferred under Section 91 on the one hand and Section 311 on the other. The summons to produce a document or other thing under Section 91 can be -9- NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR issued where the court finds that the production of the document or thing "is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, trial or other proceeding"
under the CrPC. As already noted earlier, the power under Section 311 to summon a witness is conditioned by the requirement that the evidence of the person who is sought to be summoned appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case.
40. PWs 33, 41, 43 and 48, who were the nodal officers of Idea, Airtel, Reliance and Vodafone have already been examined. During the examination of PW 41, the nodal officer of Airtel, the witness specifically deposed during the course of examination that:
"2. Call detail of mobile number xxxxxxxxxx, which has 134 pages is Ext. P-104, I sent the same detail of the call to the police. Each page of the same has seal of Bharti Airtel on the same. Call detail contains date and time wise detail of call and short message services made/sent and received by the customer. Additionally, location of the mobile number is available in code number along with the time of the call or message for which call detail is provided. Location of the call made by the mobile number in certain time has been shown with codes, I cannot state name of the location today by seeing the code. Location can be stated after decoding the same. We have coding chart for location, by seeing the same location can be started. I don't have aforesaid chart along with me. Aforesaid chart is available in the office."
(emphasis supplied)
41. The relevance of the decoding register clearly emerges from the above statement of PW 41. Hence, the effort of the prosecution to produce the decoding register which is a crucial and vital piece of evidence ought not to have been obstructed. In terms of the provisions of Section 311, the summoning of the witness for the purpose of producing the decoding register was essential for the just decision of the case.
42. Having dealt with the satisfaction of the requirements of Section 311, we deal with the objection of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR the respondents that the application should not be allowed as it will lead to filling in the lacunae of the prosecution's case. However, even the said reason cannot be an absolute bar to allowing an application under Section 311.
43. In the decision in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat [Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8] , which was more recently reiterated in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd. [Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd., (2008) 11 SCC 108 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 455] , the Court specifically dealt with this objection and observed that the resultant filling of loopholes on account of allowing an application under Section 311 is merely a subsidiary factor and the court's determination of the application should only be based on the test of the essentiality of the evidence. It noted that : [Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) case [Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8] , SCC p. 393, para 28] "28. ... The court is not empowered under the provisions of the Code to compel either the prosecution or the defence to examine any particular witness or witnesses on their side. This must be left to the parties. But in weighing the evidence, the court can take note of the fact that the best available evidence has not been given, and can draw an adverse inference. The court will often have to depend on intercepted allegations made by the parties, or on inconclusive inference from facts elicited in the evidence. In such cases, the court has to act under the second part of the section. Sometimes the examination of witnesses as directed by the court may result in what is thought to be "filling of loopholes". That is purely a subsidiary factor and cannot be taken into account. Whether the new evidence is essential or not must of course depend on the facts of each case, and has to be determined by the Presiding Judge."
(emphasis supplied)
44. The right of the accused to a fair trial is constitutionally protected under Article 21. However,
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR in Mina Lalita Baruwa [Mina Lalita Baruwa v. State of Orissa, (2013) 16 SCC 173 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 218] , while reiterating Rajendra Prasad [Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, (1999) 6 SCC 110 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1062] , the Court observed that it is the duty of the criminal court to allow the prosecution to correct an error in interest of justice. In Rajendra Prasad [Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, (1999) 6 SCC 110 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1062] , the Court had held that : (Rajendra Prasad case [Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, (1999) 6 SCC 110 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 1062] , SCC p. 113, para 8) "8. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an oversight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors. 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. After all, function of the criminal court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better."
(emphasis supplied)
45. In the present case, the importance of the decoding registers was raised in the examination of PW 41. Accordingly, the decoding registers merely being additional documents required to be able to appreciate the existing evidence in form of the call details which are already on record but use codes to signify the location of accused, a crucial detail, which can be decoded only through the decoding registers, the right of the accused to a fair trial is not prejudiced. The production of the decoding registers fits into the requirement of being relevant material which was not brought on record due to inadvertence.
46. Finally, we also briefly deal with the objection of the respondents regarding the stage at which the application under Section 311 was filed. The respondents have placed reliance on Swapan Kumar [Swapan Kumar
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019) 14 SCC 328 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 839] , a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court, to argue that the application should not be allowed as it has been made at a belated stage. The Court in Swapan Kumar [Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019) 14 SCC 328 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 839] observed : (SCC p. 331, paras 11-12) "11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has wide power under this Section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.
12. Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non- examination of the witness earlier are not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision."
47. In the present appeal, the argument that the application was filed after the closure of the evidence of the prosecution is manifestly erroneous. As already noted above, the closure of the evidence of the prosecution took place after the application for the production of the decoding register and for summoning of the witness under Section 311 was dismissed. Though the dismissal of the application and the closure of the prosecution evidence both took place on 13-11-2021, the application by the prosecution had been filed on 15-3-2021 nearly eight months earlier. As a matter of fact, another witness for the prosecution, Rajesh Kumar Singh, was also released after
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR examination and cross-examination on the same day as recorded in the order dated 13-11-2021 of the trial court.
48. The court is vested with a broad and wholesome power, in terms of Section 311CrPC, to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any material witness at any stage and the closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar. This Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh [Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 999] while dealing with the prayers for adducing additional evidence under Section 391CrPC at the appellate stage, along with a prayer for examination of witnesses under Section 311CrPC explained the role of the court, in the following terms : (SCC pp. 188-89, para 43) "43. The courts have to take a participatory role in a trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses.
Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act confer vast and wide powers on presiding officers of court to elicit all necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence-collecting process. They have to monitor the proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record. Even if the prosecutor is remiss in some ways, it can control the proceedings effectively so that the ultimate objective i.e. truth is arrived at. This becomes more necessary where the court has reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency or the prosecutor is not acting in the requisite manner. The court cannot afford to be wishfully or pretend to be blissfully ignorant or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and courts could not also play into the hands of such prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness."
(emphasis supplied)
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR
49. Further, in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh (5) [Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8] , the Court reiterated the extent of powers under Section 311 and held that : (SCC p. 392, para 27) "27. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is 'at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code'. It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind."
(emphasis supplied)
50. The Court while reiterating the principle enunciated in Mohanlal Shamji Soni [Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 595] stressed upon the wide ambit of Section 311 which allows the power to be exercised at any stage and held that : (Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh case [Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 999] , SCC p. 189, para 44) "44. The power of the court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act is in a way complementary to its
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR power under Section 311 of the Code. The section consists of two parts i.e. : (i) giving a discretion to the court to examine the witness at any stage, and (ii) the mandatory portion which compels the court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the court. Though the discretion given to the court is very wide, the very width requires a corresponding caution.
In Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India [Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 595] this Court has observed, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 311, that the very usage of the words such as, "any court", "at any stage", or "any enquiry or trial or other proceedings", "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the section has expressed in the widest-possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the court in any way. However, as noted above, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary powers should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the section does not allow any discretion but obligates and binds the court to take necessary steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case, "essential" to an active and alert mind and not to one which is bent to abandon or abdicate. Object of the section is to enable the court to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case. The power is exercised and the evidence is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the defence, if the court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of Section 311 but only to subserve the cause of justice and public interest. It is done with an object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth."
(emphasis supplied)
51. While reiterating the decisions of this Court in Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. [Karnel Singh v. State of
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 977] , Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar [Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1999) 2 SCC 126 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 104] , Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar [Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1085] and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh [Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 518 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 641] this Court held that the court may interfere even at the stage of appeal :
(Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh case [Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 999] , SCC p. 196, para 64) "64. It is no doubt true that the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial court and the acquittal has been upheld, but if the acquittal is unmerited and based on tainted evidence, tailored investigation, unprincipled prosecutor and perfunctory trial and evidence of threatened/terrorised witnesses, it is no acquittal in the eye of the law and no sanctity or credibility can be attached and given to the so-called findings. It seems to be nothing but a travesty of truth, fraud on the legal process and the resultant decisions of courts -- coram non judis and non est. There is, therefore, every justification to call for interference in these appeals."."
(Emphasis supplied) In the light of the elucidation of law by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for further cross-examination of PW-9, PW-16 and PW-19. The concerned Court shall fix a date for such cross-examination and see to that, it would not come out as a ruse to drag the proceedings further.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3008 CRL.P No. 17452 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER [I] Criminal Petition is allowed.
[II] Order dated 08.12.2025 in S.C.No.354/2019 passed by the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru, stands quashed.
[III] Application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
[IV] The concerned Court shall fix dates of such further cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses 9, 16 and 19 and regulate its procedure thereafter.
[V] In the event, the counsel would not be available for further cross-examination as is now directed, the Court shall take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, to get the prosecution witnesses further cross-examined.
Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76