Additional Witness can be Examined u/s 311 CrPC, if Court Permits

Court can permit examination of an additional witness

An additional witness summoned as per Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be examined as a Prosecution Witness if the court finds that such a person ought to have been examined as a prosecution witness, but was omitted due to oversight, mistake or for any other reason.

Powers u/s 311 CrPC & Section 165 IEA are complementary

This power under Section 311 CrPC can be invoked at any stage of the trial, even after the closing of the evidence.

The object of the Section 311 is to bring on record evidence not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution, but also from the point of view of the orderly society.

Similarly, the powers of the court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act (IEA) are complementary to Section 311 of CrPC.

Court must decide whether a person need to be examined

Whether a person is required to be examined as a witness for a just decision is again a question which must be decided by the court based on the facts of that case.

Need court’s permission to cross examine a court witness

As far as cross-examination of a Court Witness is concerned, no party can claim cross-examination of a Court Witness as a matter of right. A Court Witness can only be examined with the leave of the court.

Where a Court Witness says something prejudicial to any party, then such a party must be allowed to cross-examine that witness, says the SC in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Another v State of Gujarat & Others [(2006) 3 SCC 374].

Since a witness summoned by the court could not be termed a witness of any particular party. If a witness called by court gives evidence against the complainant, he should be allowed an opportunity to cross- examine.

The right to cross-examine a witness who is called by a court arises not under the provision of Section 311 CrPC, but under the Evidence Act which gives a party the right to cross-examine a witness who is not his own witness. These aspects were highlighted in Jagat Rai v State of Maharashtra [AIR 1968 SC 178].

Reference

1. KP Tamilmaran vs State [2025 INSC 576]
2. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Another v State of Gujarat & Others [(2006) 3 SCC 374]