Re-examination Necessary to Avoid Miscarriage of Justice in Misappropriation Case: Meghalaya High Court

High Court Affirms Trial Court’s Decision to Recall Key Witness Under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The Meghalaya High Court has dismissed a criminal petition challenging the recall of a key witness in a high-profile misappropriation and criminal breach of trust case. The bench, led by Hon’ble Justice B. Bhattacharjee, upheld the decision of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, emphasizing the necessity of the witness's re-examination to ensure a fair trial and just outcome.
The case revolves around allegations of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust under Sections 403, 406, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to the implementation of the Individual Household Latrines (IHHLs) scheme. The accused, Shri Traiborlang Khongrymmai, faced trial for the alleged offenses. During the trial, the respondent sought the recall of PW-2, the Secretary of the village and Village Water & Sanitation Committee (VWSC) of Laitmawsiang village, to correct errors and omissions made during the initial cross-examination conducted by a legal aid counsel.
The High Court underscored the vital role of PW-2 in the case, noting his involvement in the withdrawal and disbursement of funds for the IHHLs scheme alongside the accused. Justice Bhattacharjee highlighted, "The evidence of PW-2 is of utmost importance for determining the truth in the case."
The court emphasized the respondent’s right to a fair trial, stressing that the initial cross-examination by a legal aid counsel, rather than a counsel of his choice, warranted the recall. "The accused deserves the fairest opportunity to prove his innocence," the bench remarked, supporting the need to correct bona fide errors from the earlier examination.
Justice Bhattacharjee referred to the principles established in previous Supreme Court judgments, noting that the recall of a witness is permissible under Section 311 Cr.P.C. when necessary for a just decision. The court observed, "The recall is sought for the purpose of gathering fresh materials on facts strictly based on the witness's knowledge," asserting that this would not lead to undue delays or hardships.
"The paramount requirement for consideration to exercise jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is whether calling of a witness is necessary for the just decision of a case," Justice Bhattacharjee stated, reinforcing the trial court's decision to allow the re-examination.
The High Court’s decision to uphold the recall of PW-2 underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fair trial principles and the proper administration of justice. By affirming the trial court's order, the judgment emphasizes the importance of thorough and accurate witness examinations in achieving just outcomes, particularly in complex criminal cases.

Date of Decision: July 01, 2024