In light of facts and materials on record, I also find that in the application dated 6.12.2018, it has not been specifically mentioned that which particular questions are required to be put to prosecution witnesses No. 1, 2 and 3. The contents of application dated 6.12.2018 are vague and general in nature. The very use of the words in Section 311 Cr.P.C., such as 'any court', 'at any stage' or 'of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings', 'any person' and 'any such person' clearly spells out that this section is expressed in the widest possible terms and do not limit the discretion of this Court in any way. However, very width requires corresponding caution that the discretionary power should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection consistently with the provisions of the Code. It is settled that the provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to recall witness to resile from his previous statement. The object underlying in Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is that there may not be failure of justice on account of either party in bringing valuable evidence on record of living ambiguity in the statement of witnesses examined from either side. Determinative factor is whether it is essential for the just decision of the case or not. It is also settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked by the Court to fill up lacuna unless the Court is satisfied that in the interest of justice, it is necessary to invoke to said extraordinary power. Under the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that presumption, observations and findings recorded by the trial Court in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the applicant under the facts and circumstances of the case are fully sustainable. The trial Court has committed no illegality in rejecting the application of the applicant. There appears no abuse of process of the Court also. There is no evidence on record to satisfy this Court that trial would be seriously prejudiced if the said witness is not recalled for re-examination. I do not find manifest error of law or perversity in the impugned order dated 6.12.2018 passed by the trial court.
