{"id":385623,"date":"2026-05-30T13:00:34","date_gmt":"2026-05-30T07:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=385623"},"modified":"2026-05-30T12:55:22","modified_gmt":"2026-05-30T07:25:22","slug":"sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/","title":{"rendered":"Prosecutrix Cross-Examined 4 Times Over 5 Years, Defence Files 94 More Questions 4 Years Later: SC Says Section 311 CrPC Cannot Fill Defence Lacunae"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal arising from the Tripura High Court’s judgment dated 14 March 2024 wherein the High Court had set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala dated 6 February 2024 and allowed an application under Section 311<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC) seeking recall of the prosecutrix (PW 1) for further cross-examination, the Bench of Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma*<\/span>, JJ., set aside impugned order passed by the High Court and restored the trial court’s order, holding that “power under Section 311<\/a> CrPC<\/a> cannot be exercised merely to fill up lacunae in the defence case”.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court further observed that witnesses, particularly victims of heinous offences and sensitive crimes, cannot be expected to repeatedly appear before courts to face cross-examination.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Fair Trial Protects Interests of Accused, Victim and Society: Allahabad HC rejects application to recall witness after six years from cross-examination in POCSO case<\/a><\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/h3>\n

The prosecution case originated from a written complaint lodged by the prosecutrix on 27 June 2016. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered against the respondent-accused for offences punishable under Sections 342<\/a>, 376(1)<\/a> and 506<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC).<\/p>\n

According to the complaint, on the morning of 27 June 2016, after her husband had left for Sonamura Court in connection with his professional work, the prosecutrix went to the respondent’s residence at about 10.30 a.m. to discuss issues relating to house rent. It was alleged that the respondent forcibly confined her in a room, tore her clothes and committed rape. It was further alleged that he threatened to kill her if she disclosed the occurrence to anybody. After the incident, she returned to her rented accommodation in a distressed state and narrated the incident to her husband.<\/p>\n

During investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164<\/a> CrPC<\/a>. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed on 9 August 2016 and the trial commenced in 2017.<\/p>\n

The prosecutrix was examined-in-chief and cross-examined on 4 June 2018. Her cross-examination continued on 10 July 2018. Subsequently, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311<\/a> CrPC<\/a> seeking recall and re-examination of the prosecutrix. Although the trial court initially rejected the application, the High Court set aside that trial court’s order on 30 May 2019 and permitted her re-examination. Pursuant thereto, the prosecutrix was further examined and re-cross-examined on 8 August 2019 and 2 November 2019.<\/p>\n

Nearly 4 years after completion of the re-examination proceedings, the respondent filed an application dated 14 December 2023 under Section 311<\/a> CrPC<\/a> seeking recall of the prosecution for further cross-examination. The application contained 94 questions. The primary ground was that certain aspects arising from the call detail records (CDRs) of the prosecutrix and the respondent had not been brought on record due to oversight.<\/p>\n

The prosecution opposed the application on the ground that the prosecutrix had already undergone extensive examination, cross-examination, re-examination and re-cross-examination and that the application was merely intended to delay a trial which had been pending since 2017.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Under what circumstances can a witness be recalled for re-examination under Section 311 of CrPC? Kerala HC answers<\/a><\/p>\n

Trial Court’s Order<\/h3>\n

The Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 6 February 2024, rejected the application under Section 311<\/a> CrPC<\/a>, noting that the application had been filed almost 4years after completion of the prosecutrix’s cross-examination and that the trial had remained pending for more than 7 years. The Court found that the prosecutrix had already undergone detailed examination and cross-examination and that no sufficient grounds existed for recalling her after such a prolonged delay. The Court concluded that the application appeared to be an attempt to delay conclusion of the trial.<\/p>\n

High Court’s Order<\/h3>\n

The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the trial court’s order and directed that an opportunity be granted to the respondent to further examine the prosecutrix with reference to the CDRs. It also observed that both parties should cooperate in ensuring a speedy trial as the matter related to the year 2016.<\/p>\n

Issue for Determination<\/h3>\n

Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the trial court’s order and permit recall of the prosecutrix for further cross-examination under Section 311<\/a> CrPC<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Legal Principles Governing Section 311 CrPC<\/h3>\n

The Court reiterated that Section 311<\/a> CrPC<\/a> confers wide discretionary powers upon criminal courts to summon, recall or re-examine witnesses at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.<\/p>\n

The Court referred established precedents governing exercise of power under Section 311<\/a> CrPC<\/a>, including Natasha Singh<\/span> v. CBI<\/span>, (2013) 5 SCC 741<\/a> wherein it was held that the object of the provision is to discover the truth and render a just decision. However, the power cannot be exercised to fill lacunae in the prosecution or defence case, cause prejudice to the opposite party, provide unfair advantage, or disguise a retrial.<\/p>\n

In Swapan Kumar Chatterjee<\/span> v. CBI<\/span>, (2019) 14 SCC 328<\/a>, the Court emphasised that the power should be exercised only for strong and valid reasons, with great caution and circumspection, and not when the application constitutes an abuse of process; in Vijay Kumar<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, (2011) 8 SCC 136<\/a>, the Court reiterated that although the power is vast and can be exercised at any stage, it must be exercised judicially and only when the proposed evidence is germane to the issues involved or relevant material was omitted due to inadvertence and in State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span> v. Shiv Kumar Yadav<\/span>, (2016) 2 SCC 402<\/a>, the Court observed that recall of witnesses is not a matter of course. A mere observation that recall was necessary “for ensuring fair trial” is insufficient unless tangible reasons demonstrate how fairness has suffered. Courts must balance the quest for justice against delay, hardship to witnesses and other relevant considerations.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Section 311 CrPC | Can Prosecutrix be recalled for further Cross-Examination based on affidavit filed after her initial testimony? MP High Court answers<\/a><\/p>\n

Analysis<\/h3>\n

Applying the settled principles governing Section 311<\/a> CrPC<\/a> as discussed above, the Court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the trial court’s order.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the prosecutrix had first been examined and cross-examined in June and July 2018. Thereafter, she had again been recalled, re-examined and re-cross-examined in August and November 2019. Thus, the defence had been afforded ample opportunities spread over several hearings to test the veracity of her testimony.<\/p>\n

The Court attached significance to the delay in filing the application and stated that the application under Section 311<\/a> CrPC<\/a> was filed on 14 December 2023, almost 4 years after completion of the prosecutrix’s re-cross-examination and approximately 7 years after registration of the FIR and no satisfactory explanation for this delay was furnished.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that by the time the recall application was filed, 19 other prosecution witnesses had already been examined, and the trial had substantially progressed. The Court stated that it was under an obligation to ensure expeditious conclusion of the trial, which had remained pending for over 8 years.<\/p>\n

With regard to the CDRs, the Court found that the principal basis of the recall application was unsustainable as the CDRs had been filed by the prosecution itself along with the charge-sheet and formed part of the trial record from the very beginning. Therefore, the defence was fully aware of the material and had sufficient opportunity to confront the prosecutrix with those records during earlier cross-examinations.<\/p>\n

The Court held that Section 311<\/a> CrPC<\/a> could not be invoked merely to fill up lacunae in the defence case. It also emphasised that the hardship likely to be caused to the prosecutrix as she had already undergone deposition and cross-examination on 4 separate occasions before the trial court in addition to giving statements during investigation and under Section 164<\/a> CrPC<\/a> before the Magistrate. Recalling her yet again would subject her to further and unjustifiable hardship. The Court observed that witnesses, particularly victims of heinous offences and sensitive crimes, cannot be expected to repeatedly appear before courts to face cross-examination.<\/p>\n

“The witnesses cannot be expected to face hardship of appearing in court repeatedly, particularly in sensitive cases. It can result in undue hardship for the victims, especially so, of heinous crimes, if they are required to repeatedly appear in Court to face cross-examination.”<\/p>\n

Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court committed an error in setting aside the trial court’s order and permitting recall of the prosecutrix under Section 311<\/a> CrPC<\/a>. It set aside impugned order passed by the High Court, restored the trial court’s order and disposed of all pending applications. It further directed that, subject to its convenience, the trial court should conclude the trial by the end of the year.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Clearing of prosecution evidence not an absolute bar from re-examining materials\/witnesses under Section 311 CrPC: Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>\n

[State of Tripura<\/span> v. Panna Ahmed<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 960<\/a>, decided on 26-5-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Court observed that witnesses, particularly victims of heinous offences and sensitive crimes, cannot be expected to repeatedly appear before courts to face cross-examination.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":385624,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[105652,40866,44666,105651,30942,5363],"class_list":["post-385623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-cross-examination-of-victims-of-rape","tag-justice-dipankar-datta","tag-justice-satish-chandra-sharma","tag-recall-of-witness-re-examination-of-witness","tag-section-311-crpc","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSC on Recall of Witness under Section 311 CrPC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court held that Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to fill lacunae in the defence case and set aside the High Court's order recalling the prosecutrix.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prosecutrix Cross-Examined 4 Times Over 5 Years, Defence Files 94 More Questions 4 Years Later: SC Says Section 311 CrPC Cannot Fill Defence Lacunae\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court held that Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to fill lacunae in the defence case and set aside the High Court's order recalling the prosecutrix.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-30T07:30:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Section-311-CrPC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Prosecutrix Cross-Examined 4 Times Over 5 Years, Defence Files 94 More Questions 4 Years Later: SC Says Section 311 CrPC Cannot Fill Defence Lacunae\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"headline\":\"Prosecutrix Cross-Examined 4 Times Over 5 Years, Defence Files 94 More Questions 4 Years Later: SC Says Section 311 CrPC Cannot Fill Defence Lacunae\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-30T07:30:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1468,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Section-311-CrPC.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Cross-examination of victims of rape\",\"Justice Dipankar Datta\",\"Justice Satish Chandra Sharma\",\"Recall of Witness; re-examination of Witness\",\"Section 311 CrPC\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/\",\"name\":\"SC on Recall of Witness under Section 311 CrPC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Section-311-CrPC.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-30T07:30:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court held that Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to fill lacunae in the defence case and set aside the High Court's order recalling the prosecutrix.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Section-311-CrPC.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Section-311-CrPC.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Section 311 CrPC\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/30\\\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prosecutrix Cross-Examined 4 Times Over 5 Years, Defence Files 94 More Questions 4 Years Later: SC Says Section 311 CrPC Cannot Fill Defence Lacunae\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_7\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC on Recall of Witness under Section 311 CrPC | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court held that Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to fill lacunae in the defence case and set aside the High Court's order recalling the prosecutrix.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prosecutrix Cross-Examined 4 Times Over 5 Years, Defence Files 94 More Questions 4 Years Later: SC Says Section 311 CrPC Cannot Fill Defence Lacunae","og_description":"Supreme Court held that Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to fill lacunae in the defence case and set aside the High Court's order recalling the prosecutrix.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-05-30T07:30:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Section-311-CrPC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Prosecutrix Cross-Examined 4 Times Over 5 Years, Defence Files 94 More Questions 4 Years Later: SC Says Section 311 CrPC Cannot Fill Defence Lacunae","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/"},"author":{"name":"Ritu","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"headline":"Prosecutrix Cross-Examined 4 Times Over 5 Years, Defence Files 94 More Questions 4 Years Later: SC Says Section 311 CrPC Cannot Fill Defence Lacunae","datePublished":"2026-05-30T07:30:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/"},"wordCount":1468,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Section-311-CrPC.webp","keywords":["Cross-examination of victims of rape","Justice Dipankar Datta","Justice Satish Chandra Sharma","Recall of Witness; re-examination of Witness","Section 311 CrPC","Supreme Court"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/","name":"SC on Recall of Witness under Section 311 CrPC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Section-311-CrPC.webp","datePublished":"2026-05-30T07:30:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Supreme Court held that Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to fill lacunae in the defence case and set aside the High Court's order recalling the prosecutrix.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Section-311-CrPC.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Section-311-CrPC.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Section 311 CrPC"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/30\/sc-on-recall-of-witness-under-section-311-crpc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prosecutrix Cross-Examined 4 Times Over 5 Years, Defence Files 94 More Questions 4 Years Later: SC Says Section 311 CrPC Cannot Fill Defence Lacunae"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Section-311-CrPC.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/385623","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=385623"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/385623\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":385627,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/385623\/revisions\/385627"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/385624"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=385623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=385623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=385623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}