Topic
Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) governs the court's power to recall witnesses for additional evidence during trial, subject to strict judicial scrutiny in Indian criminal proceedings.
Section 348 BNSS allows summoning any witness whose evidence is essential for a just decision, even if not in charge-sheet, Uttarakhand HC held. It overturned the trial court’s refusal and ordered production of Malkhana Moharrir and original register.
Uttarakhand High Court rules that an accused's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses under Section 348 BNSS is fundamental to a fair trial. Judicial custody preventing effective legal instruction violates natural justice, justifying witness recall to uphold Article 21 rights.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that seeking digital evidence after prosecution evidence has closed, without any documentary foundation, amounts to a fishing inquiry and cannot be permitted under Section 348 BNSS. This sets a critical boundary for prosecutors and complainants in POCSO and other serious cases, preventing speculative digital forensics requests that undermine finality of trial proceedings.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that once the defence has been granted a full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and fails to avail it, recall under Section 348 BNSS cannot be invoked merely due to a change in counsel or amendment of charges. This reinforces the principle that procedural rights must be exercised timely to ensure fair trial integrity.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that under Section 348 BNSS, a petition to recall a witness cannot be granted based on vague assertions that prior counsel failed to cross-examine adequately. Only concrete, case-specific grounds demonstrating a failure of justice will justify recall, reinforcing procedural integrity and deterring tactical delays in criminal trials.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that courts may allow additional evidence under Section 348 BNSS to rectify inadvertent gaps in prosecution, particularly in Section 138 NI Act cases. This ensures procedural fairness where objective evidence, like IT returns, is crucial to proving a legally enforceable debt.
Madras High Court holds that Section 348 BNSS, akin to Section 311 CrPC, does not empower trial courts to recall a case at the judgment stage for fresh arguments. The ruling clarifies that judicial discretion under BNSS cannot override finality of proceedings, impacting Section 138 NI Act disputes and criminal trial procedures.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that recalling prosecutrix under Section 348 BNSS is permissible when defence evidence needs confrontation, even post-cross-examination.