Dismissed¶30

Papu Yadav v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Jun 2026CRLMC/1752/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 311 Cr.P.C. recall of witness; recall for further cross-examination; plea of inadvertence; vague prayer lacking particulars; witness already cross-examined at length; essential-for-just-decision test; power exercisable judiciously; no filling of lacunae; inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS; no jurisdictional error; S.T. Case No.90 of 2021; 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela; P.W.3; CRLMC No.1752 of 2026; High Court of Orissa; dismissal and affirmation of trial court order; direction to conclude trial expeditiously. No precedent cases cited in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

None to the Petitioners: CRLMC dismissed as devoid of merit and the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 affirmed; trial court directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. ¶30

Papu Yadav Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the Petitioners: CRLMC dismissed as devoid of merit and the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 affirmed; trial court directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial court correctly rejected the defence petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.W.3 for further cross-examination in S.T. Case No.90 of 2021. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon, examine or recall a witness at any stage is wide but must be exercised judiciously and only when the evidence sought to be adduced appears essential for the just decision of the case; the provision cannot be invoked to fill up omissions, lacunae or deficiencies in either party's case.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

A vague plea of inadvertence, without disclosing the specific omitted questions or their relevance to just adjudication, cannot be a ground to recall a witness who has already been extensively examined.

¶27

Key takeaways

The trial court duly considered the stage of the trial, the nature of the prayer, and the adequate opportunity already granted; its reasons for rejection were neither arbitrary nor illegal nor affected by jurisdictional error, so no interference was warranted under Section 528 of BNSS.ratio¶28
The Petitioners failed to establish that recall of P.W.3 was indispensable for the just decision of the case; the prayer was made at a belated stage without sufficient justification.ratio¶29
The impugned order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. Case No.90 of 2021 is affirmed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.), CRLMC No.1752 of 2026, order dated 23.06.2026 — Criminal revision/inherent-jurisdiction challenge to refusal of Section 311 Cr.P.C. recall. The Petitioners assailed the order dated 03.02.2026 of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela (S.T. Case No.90 of 2021) rejecting their defence petition (filed 26.11.2025) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of P.W.3 for further cross-examination on a plea of inadvertent omission of relevant questions. Held: (i) the Section 311 power, though wide, must be exercised judiciously and only where the additional evidence is essential for the just decision of the case, and cannot be used to fill omissions, lacunae or deficiencies; (ii) P.W.3 had already been cross-examined at length and the petition disclosed no specific particulars of the purportedly omitted questions, a vague plea of inadvertence being no ground for recall; (iii) the Petitioners failed to show that recall was indispensable and the prayer was belated; (iv) the trial court's reasons showed no arbitrariness, illegality or jurisdictional error calling for interference under Section 528 of BNSS. CRLMC dismissed; impugned order affirmed; trial court directed to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2026 16:29:46

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

CRLMC No.1752 of 2026

¶4

Papu Yadav & Anr. …. Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Rabi Narayan Behera, Adv.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha & Anr. Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER

Order No.

23.06.2026

01.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid

¶15

arrangement.

¶16

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶17

3. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioners have assailed the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. Case No.90 of 2021 rejecting the petition filed by the defence under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recall of P.W.3 for further crossexamination.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 26.11.2025 seeking recall of P.W.3 on the ground that certain relevant questions could not be put to the witness during his cross-

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2026 16:29:46

¶21

examination due to inadvertence. It is contended that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage of the trial and that denial of an opportunity to further cross-examine P.W.3 would cause prejudice to the defence and affect the fairness of the trial.

¶22

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and submits that P.W.3 had already been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. The petition for recall was filed after closure of the prosecution evidence without assigning any specific reason as to what material aspect remained to be elicited from the witness. It is further contended that the petition was filed only to protract the trial and cause unnecessary inconvenience to the witness.

¶23

6. The scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is well settled. Though the Court possesses wide powers to summon, examine or recall any witness at any stage of the proceeding, such power is required to be exercised judiciously and only when the evidence sought to be adduced appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. The provision cannot be invoked to fill up omissions, lacunae or deficiencies in the case of either party.

¶24

7. From the records, it appears that P.W.3 had already been cross-examined at length by the defence. In the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Petitioners

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2026 16:29:46

¶27

have merely stated that some relevant questions were inadvertently omitted during cross-examination. No specific particulars of such questions or the relevance thereof to the just adjudication of the case have been disclosed. A vague plea of inadvertence, without demonstrating the necessity of further cross-examination, cannot be a ground to recall a witness who has already been extensively examined.

¶28

8. The learned trial court has taken note of the stage of the trial, the nature of the prayer made by the defence and the fact that adequate opportunity had already been granted to cross-examine P.W.3. The reasons assigned by the learned trial court for rejecting the petition cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or suffering from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.

¶29

9. This Court is of the considered view that the Petitioners have failed to establish that recall of P.W.3 is indispensable for the just decision of the case. Rather, the prayer appears to have been made at a belated stage without sufficient justification.

¶30

10. Accordingly, the CRLMC being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The impugned order dated 03.02.2026

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

Sipun

¶33

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2026 16:29:46

¶34

passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. Case No.90 of 2021 is hereby affirmed.

¶35

11. The learned trial Court shall make every endeavour to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶36

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Papu Yadav v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Papu Yadav v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tilottama Muduli Vs State of Odisha

Ajay Kumar Paikaray Vs State of Odisha

Bank of Baroda, Keonjhar Vs State of Odisha

Senior Journalists Association, Odisha (Sjao), Jagatsinghpur Vs Hemanta Sharma,Additional Chief Secretary,Information Public Relations Dept,Bhubaneswar,Khurdha

Puspanjali Das @ Nayak Vs Sasmita Nayak

Gangadhar Sahoo Vs Padmini Nath