Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the present case, it is merely stated that certain clarification is required, for which cross-examination of the witnesses is sought. Such vague assertion, without specifying the nature of the discrepancies or their relevance to the just adjudication of the case, cannot constitute a sound ground for allowing an application to recall witnesses.
The Court noted that though a witness was mandated to produce original bank documents, he committed a mistake in bringing only photocopies containing endorsement that the same were verified with the original.
“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 Court permitted to put the questions mentioned in the questionnaire to the informant in the cross-examination. Regarding the evidentiary value of the same, the Court added that it will be decided during hearing of the criminal appeal and the application for confirmation of sentence.
Supreme Court found the case fit for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination but added that the power to recall witnesses under S.311 CrPC ought to be exercised sparingly and mere hostility by a witness, per se, would not be sufficient grounds to infer misuse of concession of bail.