Noting that recalling or re-examining witnesses is not allowed without a concrete reason, the Meghalaya High Court on Monday (July 22) overturned the trial court's decision, which had permitted the prosecution to re-examine the complainant without clearly stating the necessity for recalling.

The bench, led by Justice B. Bhattacharjee, noted that a witness cannot be recalled solely on the grounds that their recall is necessary for a fair decision. The Court emphasized that a trial court must specify the purpose for recalling a witness—whether it is to clarify issues discussed during cross-examination, to introduce new evidence, or for both reasons.

“A witness cannot be recalled for the purpose of putting repetitive question in order to seek improvement of evidence which is already a part of record. In the instant matter, the learned Trial Court has not recorded any such reason while allowing the application for recalling filed by the prosecution.”, the court said.

Drawing from the Supreme Court judgment in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and Anr., the court noted that while the recall or re-examination of a witness previously examined may be deemed necessary for a just decision, it cannot be permitted unless the need for the witness's recall and re-examination has been clearly established beforehand.

“In the present case, it appears that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order without recording any finding to ascertain the essentiality of the person ordered to be recalled. The application for recalling did not mention about occurrence of any error in the recording of evidence of the PW-1. ''

''In such a situation, there is every likelihood that the petitioner will be highly prejudiced in the event the PW-1 is examined afresh in the guise of re-examination by the prosecution on the basis of the impugned order.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the court allowed the revision petition and set aside the recall order of the trial court.

Counsel(s) for Petitioner Mrs. R. Dutta, Legal Aid Counsel

Counsel(s) for Respondents Mr. R. Gurung, GA, Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA.

Case Details: Shri Nisal Lamurong Versus State of Meghalaya & Anr., Crl. Rev. P. No. 18 of 2023