Right to Cross-Examination is Not a Luxury but a Legal Necessity: Rajasthan High Court Slams Denial of Fair Trial in Rape Case, Orders Re-Summoning of Key Witnesses

“Section 311 CrPC Must Be Invoked to Discover Truth, Not Deny It” - On 14 November 2025, the Rajasthan High Court held that denial of the accused’s right to cross-examine key prosecution witnesses amounts to a grave violation of the right to fair trial.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that the trial court’s refusal to recall the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2) — despite justified absence of defence counsel due to medical reasons — was contrary to Sections 311 of the CrPC and Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act, which guarantee the accused's right to test the prosecution case through cross-examination.

“Cross-examination is a statutory right of the accused. Unless and until this opportunity is provided... he would not be in a position to put his defence in a proper way. For conducting a fair trial, proper opportunity is required to be given to the accused.”

Trial Court Closes Cross-Examination on Day One, Ignores Illness of Defence Counsel

The petitioner, Pooranmal Yadav, was facing trial for serious charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, and 392 IPC, which relate to repeated rape, criminal intimidation, and robbery. The trial court framed charges on 20 February 2024 and scheduled recording of prosecution evidence for 03 April 2024.

On that day, PW-1 (the prosecutrix) and PW-2 (her mother) appeared for recording of evidence. However, the petitioner’s advocate was unwell and submitted a written request for adjournment. Ignoring this request, the trial court not only rejected the application but also closed the opportunity for cross-examination on the very same day.

Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 CrPC to recall the witnesses. This too was rejected by the trial court on 10 May 2024, prompting the petitioner to move the High Court.

“The Purpose of Section 311 CrPC is to Achieve the Just Decision of the Case” — High Court Emphasises Judicial Duty

The High Court strongly criticised the trial court’s mechanical approach and observed:

“There is no delay on the part of the petitioner with an intention to prolong the trial... However, the trial Court closed the petitioner’s opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses without any justified reason.”

Quoting from Section 311 CrPC, which empowers courts to recall or re-examine witnesses if their evidence appears essential for a just decision, the Court stated:

“The widest of powers have been invested with the courts... all that was required to be satisfied by the court was only in relation to such evidence that appears to the court to be essential for the just decision of the case.”

The Court held that the trial court failed to appreciate the mandatory statutory scheme under Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act, which lays down the accused’s right to cross-examination following the examination-in-chief.

It noted that:

“An accused has not only a valuable right to represent himself, he has also the right to be informed thereabout... cross-examination is not a procedural formality but a substantive right necessary to rebut the prosecution's version.”

Supreme Court Precedents Reaffirm Right to Recall for Just Adjudication

Relying on the landmark judgment in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 461, the Court reiterated that the power under Section 311 CrPC is to be exercised liberally if it appears that recall of the witness is essential to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Quoting the Supreme Court:

“The power under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons… Fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society.”

The High Court emphasized that a trial must not be decided on incomplete or inconclusive facts, especially when the most critical witnesses — the prosecutrix and her mother — had not faced any cross-examination due to no fault of the accused.

“Courts Must Err in Favour of the Accused When Right to Fair Trial is at Stake”

In a powerful observation that reinforces constitutional values, the Court stated:

“It would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused.”

Justice Dhand concluded that refusal to allow recall of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC, especially when no deliberate delay was caused by the accused, was unjustified and illegal.

Accordingly, the Court held:

“The impugned orders dated 03.04.2024 and 10.05.2024 are not sustainable... The trial Court is directed to re-summon PW-1 Deepa and PW-2 Sunita and provide an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them.”

Courts Cannot Sacrifice Fair Trial at the Altar of Expediency

This judgment reinforces a crucial principle — expeditious trial cannot come at the cost of fair trial. The High Court has reaffirmed that cross-examination is a fundamental part of criminal defence, and denial of such right amounts to a miscarriage of justice.

The ruling stands as a stern reminder to trial courts that Section 311 CrPC is not a mere procedural tool but a weapon to secure truth and ensure justice.

In doing so, the Court has preserved not only the rights of the accused but also the dignity of the criminal justice system, where justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.

Date of Decision: 14 November 2025