1 / 11 (Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025) 2026:CGHC:16847 प्रतिवेद्य छत्ती सगढ़ उच्च न्यायालया , तिलसपुर दाण्डिक प्रकर्ण! यातिचक क्रमां$क -2997 /2025 1. X Y Z -----यातिचकक!/पु ति, तिवेरूद्घ 1. छत्ती सगढ़ रज्या, द्वार थाना प्रभार , पुलिलस थाना-क5वेल , सर$गढ़, लि6ल-सरग$ढ़- तिलईगढ़, छत्ती सगढ़ (रज्या) 2. पुरूषो5त्तीमां उर्फ! पु<ना तिपु-स$लल च=हाना, उम्र-लगभाग 28 वेषो!, तिनावेस -ग्रामां सर$गढ़, लि6ल-सरग$ढ़-तिलईगढ़, छत्ती सगढ़ (अतिभायाक्त) -----उत्तीरवेदा गर्ण यातिचकक!/पु ति, द्वार : श्री तिवेक्रमां प्रपु, अलिFवेक्त । रज्या/उत्तीरवेदा क्रमां$क-1 द्वार : श्री सतिमां लिस$हा, उपु मांहालिFवेक्त । अतिभायाक्त/उत्तीरवेदा क्रमां$क-2 द्वार : सश्री हारना  क=र खना6, अलिFवेक्त । न्यायामां<ति! श्री स$6या क मांर 6यासवेल !! आदाश पु ठ पुर पुरिर !! 13/04/2026 1. उभायापुक्ष क सहामांति स अ$तिमां क! सना गए । POMAN DEWANGAN Digitally signed by POMAN DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.16 10:50:32 +0530 2 / 11 (Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025) 2. भार या नागरिरक सरक्ष स$तिहा, 2023 क Fर 528 क हा प्रस् इस यातिचक मांV, तिवेचरर्ण न्यायालया-अपुर सत्र न्यायाF श, एर्फ.टी .एस.स . (लZतिगक अपुरF[ स लक[ क स$रक्षर्ण अलिFतिनायामां, 2012 लि6स आग “तिवेशषो अलिFतिनायामां” कहा गया हा^), सर$गढ़, छत्ती सगढ़ द्वार तिवेशषो आपुरलिFक प्रकरर्ण (तिवेशषो अलिFतिनायामां) क्रमां$क-52/2024 "छत्ती सगढ़ रज्या तिवेरूद्घ पुरूषो5त्तीमां उर्फ! पु<ना" मांV पुरिर आदाश तिदाना$क- 03/07/2025 क5 चना= दा गई हा^, लि6सक हा तिवेचरर्ण न्यायालया द्वार यातिचकक!/पु ति, क ओर स तिदाना$क 22/04/2025 क5 प्रस्, दा प्रतिक्रया स$तिहा क Fर 311 क अ$ग! स्वेया$ क पुनाa पुर क्षर्ण करए 6ना स$$F आवेदाना क5 खरिर6 कर तिदाया गया हा^, लि6स आग स$क्षपु मांV "प्रश्नाF ना आदाश" स स$5लिF तिकया 6 रहा हा^ । 3. अतिभाया56ना मांमांल इस प्रकर हा^ तिक अतिभायाक्त पुरूषो5त्तीमां उर्फ! पु<ना क तिवेरूद्घ तिवेचरर्ण न्यायालया क समांक्ष भार या दा स$तिहा क Fरएc 363, 366, 376(2- ), 506 n था तिवेशषो अलिFतिनायामां क Fर 5( )/6 L क अ$ग! तिवेचरर्ण ल$ति हा^ । यातिचकक!/ पु ति, क मांख्या पुर क्षर्ण तिदाना$क 17/09/2024 क5 अतिभाललिख तिकया 6 चक हा^ । पु ति, द्वार तिदाना$क 22/04/2025 क5, अथा!e लगभाग 07 मांहा पुश्च, दा प्रतिक्रया स$तिहा क Fर 311 क अ$ग! एक आवेदाना प्रस् तिकया गया, लि6समांV याहा उल्लेख तिकया गया तिक उसक पु<वे! मांV तिदाया गया कथाना उसक मां-तिपु एवे$ वेरिरष्ठ6ना[ क प्रभावे मांV तिदाया गया था । वे!मांना मांV वेहा स्वे$त्र रूपु स अपुना सक्ष्या कथाना करना चहा हा^, अa उस पुनाa पुर क्षर्ण क अवेसर प्रदाना तिकया 6ए, लि6सस न्याया क तिहा[ क पु<ति! हा5 सक । 4. यातिचकक!/पु ति, क तिवेद्वाना अलिFवेक्त क क! हा^ तिक न्यायालया क प्रमांख उद्देश्या सत्या क अन्वेषोर्ण करना हा^ । दा प्रतिक्रया स$तिहा क Fर 311 क अ$ग! न्यायालया क5 3 / 11 (Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025) व्यापुक अलिFकर प्रप्त हाZ तिक वेहा न्याया5तिच तिनार्ण!या क लिलए आवेश्याक सक्ष्या क5 पुनाa अतिभाललिख कर सक । तिवेद्वाना अलिFवेक्त द्वार अपुना क! क समांथा!ना मांV . Manju Devi v , 2019 1976 State of Rajasthan AIR SC था . Natasha Singh v CBI ( ), 2013 3554 State SCW क न्यायादृष्टां$[ क हावेल तिदाया गया हा^, लि6नामांV याहा प्रतिपुतिदा तिकया गया हा^ तिक न्याया क तिहा मांV आवेश्याक हा5ना पुर सक्ष क5 पुनाa पुर क्षर्ण हा लया 6 सक हा^ । 5. रज्या/उत्तीरवेदा क्रमां$क–1 क तिवेद्वाना अलिFवेक्त द्वार याहा क! प्रस् तिकया गया हा^ तिक पु ति, क5 अपुना न्यायालया ना कथाना क5 र-र पुरिरवेति! करना क अनामांति प्रदाना तिकए 6ना स न्याया क तिहा[ पुर प्रतिक< ल प्रभावे पु,ग । याहा भा क! तिदाया गया हा^ तिक पु ति, क कथाना पु<वे! मांV न्यायालया क समांक्ष स्वे$त्र रूपु स अतिभाललिख तिकया 6 चक हा^ । वे!मांना मांV पु ति, अतिभायाक्त क सथा तिनावेसर हा^ था उस क प्रभावे मांV आकर अपुना पु<वे! कथाना क5 पुरिरवेति! करना चहा हा^ । ऐस ण्डिस्थाति मांV उस पुनाa पुर क्षर्ण क अनामांति प्रदाना करना न्यातियाक प्रतिक्रया क दारुपुया5ग हा5ग था उस असत्या कथाना करना क अवेसर प्रप्त हा5ग, लि6सस न्याया क हातिना हा5ना क स$भावेना हा^ । इसस ना क वेल न्यायालया ना कया!वेहा क ग$भा र एवे$ तिवेश्वेसना या प्रभातिवे हा5ग , ण्डिrक समां6 मांV भा प्रतिक< ल स$दाश 6एग । तिवेद्वाना अलिFवेक्त द्वार अपुना क! क समांथा!ना मांV . Ratan Lal v Prahlad Jat, (2017) 9 SCC 340 क न्यायादृष्टां$ क हावेल तिदाया गया हा^ । 6. Fर-311 दा प्रतिक्रया स$तिहा, 1973 क प्रवेFना तिनाम्नावे हा^a- “311. आवेश्याक सक्ष क5 समांना करना या उपुण्डिस्था व्यातिक्त क पुर क्ष करना क शतिक्त- क5ई न्यायालया इस स$तिहा क अF ना तिकस 4 / 11 (Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025) 6cच, तिवेचरर्ण या अन्या कया!वेहा क तिकस प्रक्रमां मांV तिकस व्यातिक्त क5 सक्ष क =र पुर समांना कर सक हा^ या तिकस ऐस व्यातिक्त क, 65 हालि6र हा5, याद्यतिपु वेहा सक्ष क रूपु मांV समांना ना तिकया गया हा5, पुर क्ष कर सक हा^, तिकस व्यातिक्त क5, लि6सक पुहाल पुर क्ष क 6 चक हा^ पुनाa ल सक हा^ और उसक पुनाa पुर क्ष कर सक हा^; और यातिदा न्यायालया क5 मांमांल क न्यायास$ग तिवेतिनाण्डिश्चया क लिलए तिकस ऐस व्यातिक्त क सक्ष्या आवेश्याक प्र  हा5 हा^ 5 वेहा ऐस व्यातिक्त क5 समांना करग और उसक पुर क्ष करग या उस पुनाa लएग और उसक पुनाa पुर क्ष करग ।" 7. लZतिगक अपुरF[ स लक[ क स$रक्षर्ण अलिFतिनायामां, 2012 क Fर-33(5) क प्रवेFना तिनाम्नानासर हा^— “33(5) तिवेशषो न्यायालया याहा सतिनाण्डिश्च करग तिक लक क5 न्यायालया मांV पुर क्षर्ण क लिलया र-र नाहाw लया 6एग ।" 8. याहा स्पुष्टां हा^ तिक न्यायालया द्वार दा प्रतिक्रया स$तिहा क Fर 311 क अ$ग! प्रदात्ती शतिक्तया[ क प्रया5ग अत्या$ सवेFना एवे$ तिवेवेकपु<र्ण! ढं$ग स तिकया 6ना आवेश्याक हा^ । सथा हा , तिवेशषो अलिFतिनायामां क Fर 33(5) क अनासर पु ति, क5 अनावेश्याक रूपु स र-र सक्ष्या हा आहाy नाहाw तिकया 6ना चतिहाए । तिवेचरF ना प्रकरर्ण मांV याहा उल्लेखना या हा^ तिक पु ति, द्वार स्वेया$, अपुना न्यायालया ना कथाना अतिभाललिख हा5ना क लगभाग 07 मांहा पुश्च, पुनाa पुर क्षर्ण करए 6ना हा आवेदाना प्रस् तिकया गया हा^ । आवेदाना मांV याहा भा इ$तिग हा^ तिक वे!मांना मांV वेहा, अपु लथाz/अतिभायाक्त क सथा तिनावेसर हा^ । ऐस ण्डिस्थाति मांV याहा तिवेचरर्ण या हा^ तिक क्या पु ति, क पु<वे! कथाना वेस्वे मांV उसक मां-तिपु क प्रभावे मांV तिदाया गया था अथावे यातिदा उस पुनाa पुर क्षर्ण हा अवेसर प्रदाना तिकया 6 हा^, 5 क्या वेहा अतिभायाक्त क 5 / 11 (Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025) प्रभावे मांV आकर अपुना कथाना पुरिरवेति! करग । अa इना समांस् पुरिरण्डिस्थातिया[ क मां<rया$कना तिकया 6ना आवेश्याक हा^ । 9. यातिचकक!/पु ति, पुक्ष द्वार प्रस् न्यायादृष्टां$ मांV मांनाना या सवे|च्च न्यायालया ना इस तिवेषोया मांV Manju Devi (पु<वे|क्त) क मांमांल मांV कण्डिक-15 मांV तिनाम्नालिललिख अवेFरर्ण व्याक्त तिकया हा^- "15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of 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 opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred 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 great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as "any Court", "at any stage", or "or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings", "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence 6 / 11 (Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025) to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case." 10. मांनाना या सवे|च्च न्यायालया ना Natasha Singh (पु<वे|क्त) प्रकरर्ण मांV कण्डिक-9 मांV तिनाम्नालिललिख प्रतिपुतिदा तिकया हा^— "9. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right." 11. दा<सर ओर, रज्या/उत्तीरवेदा क्रमां$क–1 द्वार अपुना पुक्ष समांथा!ना मांV मांनाना या सवे|च्च न्यायालया क न्यायादृष्टां$ Ratan Lal (पु<वे|क्त) क हावेल तिदाया हा^ लि6समांV तिनाम्नानासर प्रतिपुतिदा तिकया गया हा^— “16. That brings us to the next question as to whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge and allowing the application filed by PWs 4 and 5 for their re-examination. For ready reference Section 311 CrPC is as under: “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.—Any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the court 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.” 7 / 11 (Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025) 17. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025) 17. In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re- examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. This power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Therefore, the reasons for exercising this power should be spelt out in the order. 18. In Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. [Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 8 SCC 136, this Court while explaining scope and ambit of Section 311 has held as under:- “17. Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of [CrPC] and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously.” 8 / 11 (Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025) 19. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat, this Court has considered the concept underlining under Section 311 as under:- “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.” 20. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402, it was held thus:- “… Certainly, recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision, but not on such consideration as has been adopted in 9 / 11 (Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025) the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary “for ensuring fair trial” is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of the opposite party, plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including uncalled for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for delay in the trial. Having regard to these considerations, there is no ground to justify the recall of witnesses already examined.” 21. The delay in filing the application is one of the important factors which has to be explained in the application. In Umar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan [Umar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 14 SCC 711, this Court has held as under:- “38. Before parting, however, we may notice that a contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW 1 who was examined in Court on 5-7-1994 purported to have filed an application on 1- 5-1995 stating that five accused persons named therein were innocent. An application filed by him purported to be under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the learned trial Judge by order dated 13-5-1995. A revision petition was filed thereagainst and the High Court also rejected the said 10 / 11 (Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025) contention. It is not a case where stricto sensu the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have been invoked. The very fact that such an application was got filed by PW 1 nine months after his deposition is itself a pointer to the fact that he had been won over. It is absurd to contend that he, after a period of four years and that too after his examination-in-chief and cross-examination was complete, would file an application on his own will and volition. The said application was, therefore, rightly dismissed.” 12. उपुर5क्त न्यायादृष्टां$[ क आल5क मांV, तिवेचरF ना प्रकरर्ण क थ्या[ पुर तिवेचर करना स याहा पुरिरलतिक्ष हा5 हा^ तिक यातिचकक!/पु ति, द्वार अपुना न्यायालया ना कथाना अतिभाललिख हा5ना क लगभाग 07 मांहा पुश्च दा प्रतिक्रया स$तिहा क Fर 311 क अ$ग! स्वेया$ क पुनाa पुर क्षर्ण हा आवेदाना प्रस् तिकया गया हा^ । उसक प्रतिपुर क्षर्ण क पुया!प्त अवेसर तिदाया गया था । सथा हा , याहा भा स्पुष्टां हा^ तिक वे!मांना मांV वेहा अतिभायाक्त क सथा तिनावेसर हा^ । ऐस पुरिरण्डिस्थातिया[ मांV याहा सतिनाण्डिश्च करना अत्या$ कतिठना हा^ तिक पु ति, तिकस समांया तिकसक प्रभावे मांV रहा हा^ । आवेदाना क प्रक~ ति स याहा स्पुष्टां हा5 हा^ तिक यातिचकक!/पु ति, अपुना पु<वे! न्यायालया ना कथाना मांV पुरिरवे!ना करना चहा हा^ । ऐस ण्डिस्थाति मांV यातिदा पु ति, क5 पुनाa पुर क्षर्ण क अवेसर प्रदाना तिकया 6 हा^, 5 न्यायालया ना कया!वेहा क दा=रना अतिभाललिख सक्ष्या क तिवेश्वेसना या पुर प्रतिक< ल प्रभावे पु,ग । इसस ना क वेल तिवेचरर्ण प्रतिक्रया मांV अतिनाण्डिश्च एवे$ अतिवेश्वेस क ण्डिस्थाति उत्पुन्न हा5ग , ण्डिrक सतिक्षया[ क5 र-र अपुना कथाना मांV पुरिरवे!ना करना क अवेसर प्रप्त हा5ग, 65 न्यातियाक प्रतिक्रया क लिलए घाक लिसद्ध हा5ग । सथा हा , समां6 मांV भा न्यातियाक प्रतिक्रया क प्रति प्रतिक< ल स$दाश 6एग । अa 11 / 11 (Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025) उपुया!क्त समांस् पुरिरण्डिस्थातिया[ क5 दृतिष्टांग रख हा‚ए, तिवेचरF ना प्रकरर्ण मांV पु ति, क5 पुनाa पुर क्षर्ण हा अनामांति प्रदाना तिकया 6ना न्याया5तिच प्र  नाहाw हा5 । 13. इस प्रकर, अतिभालख मांV उपुलब्F समांस् थ्या एवे$ पुरिरण्डिस्थातिया[ क5 दृतिष्टांग रख हा‚ए, तिवेचरर्ण न्यायालया द्वार पुरिर "प्रश्नाF ना आदाश" मांV क5ई अवे^F अथावे अशद्घ पुरिरलतिक्ष नाहाw हा5 हा^ । अa उसमांV हास्क्षपु तिकए 6ना क आवेश्याक नाहाw पुई 6 । अa याहा यातिचक खरिर6 क 6 हा^ । 14. रलि6स्टी„ क5 तिनादा…तिश तिकया 6 हा^ तिक इस आदाश क प्रति याथाश घ्र तिवेचरर्ण न्यायालया क5 स<चनाथा! प्रतिषो तिकया 6ए । 15. उपुर5क्तनासर, इस दाण्डिक प्रकर्ण! यातिचक क तिनारकरर्ण तिकया 6 हा^ । सहा /- (स$6या क मांर 6यासवेल) न्यायाF श पु5मांना