December 29, 2000 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has ordered the recall of a police witness and quashed a trial court’s refusal to allow further cross-examination after fresh contradictions emerged in the complainant’s testimony.

Justice R.S. Garg examined the record in a criminal matter where Assistant Sub-Inspector M.S. Chauhan had been examined on January 23, 1992, while the original complainant, Chhatrapal, gave his evidence more than five years later, on April 21, 1997. When contradictions surfaced between the two statements, the accused asked the trial court to recall Chauhan so that additional, clarifying questions could be put to him. The trial court rejected that request on the ground that the defence had had a prior opportunity to cross-examine Chauhan.

The High Court found that the trial court’s reasoning overlooked a crucial fact: the defence could not reasonably be expected to anticipate or address testimony that had not yet been given by the complainant. Several proposed questions the accused sought to ask Chauhan were neither absurd nor irrelevant; they were directed at resolving ambiguities and reconciling inconsistencies that only came to light after the complainant’s later testimony. For that reason, the High Court concluded the trial court had failed to exercise its discretion in accordance with law and had thereby committed a jurisdictional error.

Acting on that conclusion, the court set aside the lower court’s order and directed that M.S. Chauhan be recalled for further cross-examination. The High Court’s decision reinforces the principle that an accused’s right to effective cross-examination must yield to the practical realities of witness sequencing and the emergence of fresh contradictions during a long trial. The petition was allowed and the criminal revision succeeded.

Case Reference : Criminal Revision No. 68 of 2000, Rajju vs. State of Chhattisgarh; For the Petitioner: Shri H.B. Agrawal, Advocate; For the Respondent/State: Shri Ranveer Singh, Advocate.