By Shazia Siddiqui

In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court emphasized the stringent requirements for permitting the recall and re-examination of witnesses under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The case in question arose from an appeal challenging a lower court’s ruling, which allowed the prosecution to recall witnesses and present additional evidence. The initial incident involved serious charges against two individuals: Hena Khatoon, accused of causing the death of a three-year-old boy by forcefully hitting his head against a wall, and Shahajadha Khan, charged with misleading information to protect Khatoon. The charges included severe offenses under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

During the trial, after examining witnesses and presenting exhibits, the prosecution sought to recall a witness and introduce treatment records of the deceased child through three separate petitions. The defense objected, arguing that these moves were attempts to patch up gaps in the prosecution’s case. Despite these objections, the trial court granted the petitions, citing that recalling the witness and adding new evidence were crucial for ensuring a just decision and would not unfairly prejudice the accused.

The case was subsequently brought before the Kerala High Court, which was tasked with determining whether the trial court’s order was lawful and justified under Section 311 of the CrPC. This section grants courts the authority to summon or recall witnesses at any stage of an inquiry, trial, or other proceedings if it is essential for a just decision.

In its ruling, the High Court underscored that the power under Section 311 must be invoked with careful deliberation. The court referred to established precedents, notably the case Xxxx v. State of Kerala [2024 (3) KHC 15], to reiterate that such powers should only be exercised when there are compelling and valid reasons, and when it serves the ends of justice. The court stressed that allowing additional evidence must not be misused as a means to conduct a retrial or alter the nature of the case against any party.

The court further observed that the provisions of Section 311 CrPC are framed in broad terms, enabling courts to exercise wide discretion in the interest of justice. However, this discretion must be balanced against the necessity of the evidence to the case’s outcome and the opportunity for the opposing party to rebut the new evidence. The ruling highlighted that the need for the additional evidence should be clearly demonstrated and relevant to the issues at hand.

In the present case, the High Court found that the trial court’s order to recall witnesses and admit new evidence did not violate any legal standards. It affirmed that the trial court had rightly determined the necessity of the additional evidence for a just resolution of the case. Thus, the High Court concluded that there was no illegality in the order and dismissed the petition challenging the trial court’s decision.

Thus, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed the principles guiding the application of Section 311 CrPC, emphasizing the need for careful justification and relevance when recalling witnesses. The decision reinforces the importance of ensuring that such powers are used judiciously to support the fair administration of justice.

Case Title: Hena Khatoon v. State of Kerala

Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/43611

Click here to read/Download the judgement