Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"Mere the receipt of D.N.A. report after recording of prosecution evidence does not automatically confer any right upon the accused to seek recall of the prosecutrix for further cross examination," Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated July , 2026, held that the subsequent receipt of a DNA report does not grant an accused an automatic right to recall a prosecutrix for further cross-examination under Section 311 of the CrPC.

A single-judge bench of Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal observed that since a DNA report is an expert scientific opinion, a lay witness like the prosecutrix—who possesses no specialized knowledge of the report—cannot be recalled for questioning on its contents as a matter of course.

The Court emphasized that the power to recall a witness must be exercised with "care, caution, and circumspection" and only to meet the ends of justice, rather than to allow a party to fill lacunae in their case.

The applicant, Golu @ Karan Ahirwar, filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging an order passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. The Trial Court had dismissed his application under Section 311 of the CrPC, which sought to recall the prosecutrix (PW/1) for further cross-examination. The applicant contended that because the DNA report was received only after the prosecutrix's testimony was recorded, he was unable to put relevant questions to her regarding the report during the initial examination.

The primary question before the court was whether the receipt of scientific evidence post-testimony constitutes a valid ground for recalling a witness under Section 311 of the CrPC. The Court was also called upon to determine whether a witness who is not the author of a scientific report can be effectively cross-examined on its technical findings to assist the court in arriving at the truth.

Scope Of Power Under Section 311 CrPC

The Court began by outlining the judicial principles governing the recall of witnesses, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Raja Ram Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another (2013). It noted that the power under Section 311 of the CrPC is discretionary and must be invoked only for "strong and valid reasons" to ensure a fair trial. The bench observed that while fair trial is a constitutional goal and a human right, the discretion to recall must be exercised "judicially to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily."

Tangible Reasons Required For Recalling Witnesses

Citing State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and Another (2016), the Court remarked that a mere observation that a recall is necessary for a fair trial is insufficient. There must be "tangible reasons" to show how the trial would suffer without such a recall. The bench further noted that the object of Section 311 is to find the truth, but it should not be used as a tool to delay proceedings or harass witnesses without substantial cause.

"Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice Therefore, the reasons for exercising this power should be spelt out in the order."

Prosecutrix Lacks Specialized Knowledge Of DNA Reports

Turning to the facts of the case, the High Court highlighted that the DNA report is an expert opinion based on scientific examination. It noted that the prosecutrix did not prepare the report, nor did she possess any specialized knowledge regarding its contents. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the Scientific Officer from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) who conducted the DNA examination had already been examined and cross-examined by the accused.

No Specific Questions Proposed By The Applicant

The Court observed that the applicant failed to demonstrate what specific scientific questions would be put to the prosecutrix that would actually assist the Court in reaching the truth. It noted that the receipt of the report does not create an automatic entitlement for recall.

"The D.N.A. expert has already been examined and cross examined by the accused before the Trial Court. The accused is not able to demonstrate that what scientific/specific questions will be put up to the prosecutrix to assist the Court in arriving at the truth."

Final Decision On Merits

The Court concluded that all possible defenses had already been explored by the petitioner during the initial cross-examination of the prosecutrix. Therefore, her further examination was deemed unnecessary. The bench found no error in the Trial Court's decision to reject the application, as the power under Section 311 cannot be invoked to enable a party to "fill up the lacunae in its case."

The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion correctly. The ruling clarifies that the availability of new scientific evidence does not necessitate the recall of non-expert witnesses unless the accused can prove that such a witness can provide material testimony regarding that specific evidence.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2026