You are on page 1of 3

Decided SC cases stating Re-examination not permitted.

1.)Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. ... vs Sharad Chand


Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 2009
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph
17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can
be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the
parties to the suit, but as indicated hereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up
the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear any
ambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course, if the
evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit,
it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court to permit recall of such a witness for reexamination-in- chief with permission to the defendants to cross-examine the witness
thereafter. There is nothing to indicate that such is the situation in the present case. Some
of the principles akin to Order 47 CPC may be applied when a party makes an application
under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, but it is ultimately within the Court's
discretion, if it deems fit, to allow such an application. In the present appeal, no such case
has been made out.

Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 4 July, 2013

Bench: T.S. Thakur, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla


https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/3583407/?formInput=re-examination%20of
%20witness%20%20doctypes%3A%20supremecourt
The Lordships of Supreme Court have held in Dohiyabhai Vs. State, AIR 1964 SC 1563
that Right to re- examine a witness arises only after the conclusion of
cross examination and S.C. 138 says it shall be directed to the explanation of any part of
his evidence given during cross examination which is capable of being construed
unfavourably too his own side. The object is to give an opportunity to reconcile the
discrepancies if any between the statements in examination in chief and
cross examination or to explain any statement inadvertently made in
cross examination or to remove any ambiguity in the deposition or suspicion
cast on the evidence by cross examination. Where there is no ambiguity or
where there is nothing to explain, question put in re-examination with the sole
object of giving a change to the witness to unto the effect of the previous
statement should not be asked during re-examination (S.142).Section 154 is wide
in its scope and court can permit a person calling a witness to but question in the nature of
cross examination at the stage of re-examinationprovided it take care to give
opportunity to the adverse party to cross examine thewitness in the such case.

3. Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 23 September, 2014


Bench: Dipak Misra, Rohinton Fali Nariman.
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/188951670/?formInput=re-examination%20of
%20witness%20%20doctypes%3A%20supremecourt

30. In this context, we think it apt to reproduce some passages from Rammi @
Rameshwar V. State of Madhya Pradesh[28], where the Court was dealing with the
purpose of re-examination. After referring to Section 138 of the Evidence Act, the
Court held thus:
"There is an erroneous impression that re-examination should be confined to
clarification of ambiguities which have been brought down in cross- examination.
No doubt, ambiguities can be resolved through re-examination. But that is not the
only function of the re-examiner. If the party who called the witness feels that
explanation is required for any matter referred to in cross-examination he has
the liberty to put any question in re-examination to get the explanation. The
Public Prosecutor should formulate his questions for that purpose. Explanation may
be required either when the ambiguity remains regarding any answer elicited
during cross-examination or even otherwise. If the Public Prosecutor feels that
certain answers requiremore elucidation from the witness he has the freedom and
the right to put such questions as he deems necessary for that purpose, subject of
course to the control of the court in accordance with the other provisions. But the
court cannot direct him to confine his questions to ambiguities alone which arose in
cross-examination.

4. Ag vs Shiv Kumar Yadav And Anr on 10 September, 2015


By: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Adarsh Kumar Goel.

Insofar as recalling and re-examination of any person already examined is concerned, the
court must necessarily consider and ensure that such recall and re-examination of any
person, appears in the view of the court to be essential for the just decision of the case.
Therefore, the paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose the essentiality
of a person to berecalled and re- examined has to be ascertained. To put it differently, while
such a widest power is invested with the court, it is needless to state that exercise of such
power should be made judicially and also with extreme care and caution.

5. ) Sister Mina Lalitha Baruwa vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 5 December, 2013

Bench: Surinder Singh Nijjar, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla.

https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/187217215/?formInput=reexamination%20of%20witness%20%20%20%20%20doctypes%3A
%20supremecourt
Therefore, a reading of Section 311, Cr.P.C. and Section 138 Evidence Act, insofar as it
comes to the question of a criminal trial, the order of re-examination at the desire of any
person under Section 138, will have to necessarily be in consonance with the prescription
contained in Section 311, Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, imperative that the invocation of Section
311,Cr.P.C.
Insofar asrecalling and re-examination of any person already examined, the Court must
necessarily consider and ensure that such recall and re-examination of any person,
appears in the view of the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore,
the paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose the essentiality of a person
to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained. To put it differently, while such a
widest power is invested with the Court, it is needless to state that exercise of such power
should be made judicially and also with extreme care and caution.