Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010188232026 2026:GAU-AS:12971 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./449/2026 AMAL GHOSH ALIAS BAPAN GHOSH AND 2 ORS. S/O LATE BENU GHOSH, 2: SHYAMAL GHOSH S/O- LATE BENU GHOSH 3: BHAWAL GHOSH S/O- LATE BENU GHOSH ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ALISINGA URIAMGURI P.S. TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM PI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. K L R YANTHAN,MS A DAS,MS. R DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 07.09.2026 Heard Mr S C Biswas, assisted by Ms U Nanda, learned counsel for the Page No.# 2/6 petitioners. Also heard Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application filed under Section 438/442, along with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.07.2026, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tezpur, Sonitpur, in Sessions Case No. 30/2024, by which the petition filed by the petitioners for re-cross-examination of the prosecution witness No. 2 was rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the main ground for rejection of the application filed for re-cross-examination of PW-2 was that no specific questions were culled out by the petitioners in their application, which they wants to put to PW-2 during his re-cross-examination. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he be given the liberty to file a fresh application, wherein the petitioners would elaborately explain the questions that they want to put to the prosecution witness No. 2. 4. Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that in the application filed by the petitioners with the prayer for recall of PW-2, for his re-cross-examination, the petitioners had stated that some new evidence has come to light which they want to put to PW-2, and he submits that the same cannot be allowed as per law. He also submits that the said ground in the said Page No.# 3/6 application that the petitioners pray for contradicting the said witness with regard to his previous statement, can also not be allowed during re-cross- examination. He, as such, submits that the order dated 13.07.2026 is not incorrect and the same is passed as per law. 5. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties and I have gone through the records. 6. Under Section 311 of the CrPC or Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023, it is provided that the Court, at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding, summon any person as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined, if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. 7. It is a settled position of law that the said recourse to section 348 of the BNSS, 2023, cannot be taken to, in case, it is found out that the same has been, to fill up the lacuna of the case. The said provision can be exercised only for just decision of the case. It is seen in the instant case that PW-2 was already examined and cross-examined and was discharged on 26.07.2024 and it is almost after a two year period that the petitioner has filed the application for re- cross-examination of PW-2 under Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023. In the application filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Page No.# 4/6 it was specifically stated that some new evidence has come to light, which was not there when the said witness was examined and cross-examined and that the petitioners would like to put the same to the said witness and the other ground taken by the petitioners is that they wanted to bring on record the contradictions with regard to the statements of the said PW-2. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rammi & Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; reported in (1999) 8 SCC 649, had held that re-cross-examination can be allowed only for clearing the doubts in the cross-examination and not beyond that. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in yet another decision in Rajendra Prasad -vs- Narcotic Cell, Delhi; reported in (1999) 6 SCC 110, it is held 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 the sides is closed, but only if it is dictated by exigency of the situation and fair play and good sense and that further the requirements of justice command the examination of any such person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the same would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of A.P.; reported in (2012) 7 SCC 56, had held that if there appears failure of justice Page No.# 5/6 on account of a mistake of either party to bring on record, valuable evidence or the statements of the witnesses, was left with some ambiguity, the said Court can call or recall for re-cross-examination of the said witness under Section 311 of the IPC, which is 348 of the BNSS, 2023. 11. In the instant case, it is seen that an application has been filed after 2 (two) years of the examination and cross-examination of PW-2 and the trial is at the stage of evidence of the prosecution witnesses and as such, it is seen that the application has not been filed after a very long period of time, so that the same takes a heavy toll on the human memory. The only ground taken by the learned Trial Court was that no specific questions were narrated by the petitioner in the petition praying for recalling the said prosecution witnesses. It is correct and while seeing the application, this Court also does not find any specific questions, which the petitioners desire to put to the prosecution witness No. 2. It should not be lost sight of the fact that the fairness of the trial is a virtue that is sacrosanct to our judicial system and no price is too heavy to protect that virtue. 12. As a result, this Court, therefore sets aside the order dated 13.07.2026, passed by the learned Trial Court, and direct that the petitioners would file a fresh application providing therein the questions in specific terms that they want Page No.# 6/6 to put to the PW No. 2 and the learned Trial Court on finding that the same is for the just decision of the case and according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as mentioned above, should allow the same , and allow the said re-cross-examination of PW No. 2 for the ends of justice. It is also directed that the petitioners would file such application without any delay as soon as possible. 13. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant