HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18484 of 2026 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2024 (State v. Ahmad Hasan and Another) arising out of Case Crime No. 0244 of 2023 under Section 498A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S-Azeem Nagar, District-Rampur whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for the recalling the prosecution witness. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant is facing trial u/s 498A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. According to the post mortem report the immediate cause of death is Coma due to Ante Mortem head injury. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that during trial five prosecution witnesses have been examined and the applicant wants to recall PW-5, i.e., Doctor Nitin Sharma and to further re examine him as material witness who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and during cross-examination certain questions could not be asked which are relevant for the just decision of the case.The applicant in his application has mentioned U/s 311 C.r.P.C the relevant questions which need to be asked. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan [(2019) 6 SCC 203] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court noted that an Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Noor Jahaan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) application under Section 311 could not be rejected on the sole ground that the case had been pending for an inordinate amount of time (ten years there). Rather, it noted that : (SCC p. 209, para 13) “13. … the length/duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of ensuring the just decision after taking all the necessary and material evidence on record. In other words, the age of a case, by itself, cannot be decisive of the matter when a prayer is made for examination of a material witness”. Speaking for the Court, Dinesh Maheshwari J. expounded on the principles underlying Section 311 in the following terms: 'It needs hardly any emphasis that the discretionary powers like those under Section 311 CrPC are essentially intended to ensure that every necessary and appropriate measure is taken by the Court to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity insofar as the evidence is concerned as also to ensure that no prejudice is caused to anyone. The principles underlying Section 311CrPC and amplitude of the powers of the court thereunder have been explained by this Court in several decisions.' In Natasha Singh v. CBI [ (2013) 5 SCC 741] , though the application for examination of witnesses was filed by the accused but, on the principles relating to the exercise of powers under Section 311, this Court observed, inter alia, as under : 'Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to examine a person present at “any stage” of “any enquiry”, or “trial”, or “any other proceedings” under CrPC, or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, CrPC has conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the court in this respect, but such a discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power of the court in this context is very wide, and in exercise of the same, it may summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such power even suo motu if no such NA528 No. 18484 of 2026 2 application has been filed by either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a witness, or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case'. '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 311CrPC 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 311CrPC 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 to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of Page 4 of 6 the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case." (emphasis in original) 6. In the light of decision as discussed above and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that in case the applicant deposits the cost of Rs. NA528 No. 18484 of 2026 3 5,000/- to be paid to PW-5, within a period of four weeks from today, the Court concerned shall give a fresh opportunity to the applicant to recall and re-examine the PW-5 Dr Nitin Sharma on specific grounds. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of. May 5, 2026 Aditya Tripathi NA528 No. 18484 of 2026 4 (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad