JUDGMENT : SHAMIMA JAHAN, J. 1. The issue which needs to be addressed by this Court is as to whether recalling of witnesses under Section 311 of CRPC (Section 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023) can be entertained in the present case or not. The instant petition is filed against the order dated 28-04-2025 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh in Sessions Case no. 45/2015 (YPA) by which, the recalling of prosecution witnesses No. 2 & 3 was rejected. The trial Court had passed the said rejection order mainly on the ground of engaging new counsel for defence, who had prayed to examine the witnesses again after the said witnesses were already examined and discharged after cross-examination. The trial court observed that if the same is allowed, there would be chaos in trial of the case. The trial court, by considering various judgments passed by various Hon’ble courts, had held that change of counsel cannot be a ground for recalling witnesses. The trial court had also placed reliance on a Supreme Court’s judgement passed in Jagdish Singh Khehar vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav&Anr., reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Crl.) 510, wherein it was held that power under Section 311 Cr.P.C can be exercised only for valid reasons. Furthermore, the trial court had observed that PW-2 & 3 were examined on 3-3- 2016 and 17-5-2018 respectively before the said court and that the case was pending since the year 2015 and that further delay in concluding the trial would not be in the interest of justice.On the said grounds, the learned trial Court observed that the application filed by the petitioner having not revealed any valid reasons was liable to be interfered with and the same was rejected vide Order dated 28-4-2025. The trial Court thereafter fixed the matter forappearance of the accused and for examination of the Investigating Officer. 2. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the instant criminal revision petition under Section 442, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (shortly here-in-after referred to as BNSS, 2023). The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before this Court that recalling of prosecution witnesses Nos. 2 & 3 is required for theends of justice. 2. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the instant criminal revision petition under Section 442, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (shortly here-in-after referred to as BNSS, 2023). The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before this Court that recalling of prosecution witnesses Nos. 2 & 3 is required for theends of justice. He submitted that there were many contradictions in the statement of PW-2 and PW No. 3 which were not proved in accordance with law and that they are required to be recalled for the just decision of the case. He, as such has placed the contradictions as mentioned here-in-below. 3. Mr. S D Roy, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that PW No. 2, namely Shri Tai Chanam, had stated in his statements recorded under section 161Cr.P.C i.e. before the investigating officer that on 12-03-2013, he along with two other friends and one Rahim Ali were together at a place where his father had 3-4 shops and was planning and discussing to open a shop in one of the room and thatthereafter they found the weather very hot and they came out of the shop and were sitting in a junction area. He stated that at that juncture, the petitioner reached the spot and started arguing as to why they were sitting so late at night, at which this witness replied that his residence is nearby. However, the petitioner quarrelled with this witness as well as others. This witness further stated that thereafter the other two friends left for their home and he along with said Rahim Ali left for his residence. Furthermore, he said that immediately thereafter the petitioner arrived in a motorcycle armed with machete and when this witness tried to escape, the petitioner chased him and attacked him with the weapon on the neck of this witness in front of his residence on the roadside, and that the petitioner alsoattacked this witness on his face. He then stated that said Rahim Ali shouted and the petitioner fled away from the spot. 4. He then stated that said Rahim Ali shouted and the petitioner fled away from the spot. 4. Thecounsel for the petitioner thereafter stated that the prosecution witness No. 2 while deposing before the trial Court had narrated a different story.PW-2 in his statement before the trial court stated that while he and his friend Rahim Ali were working inside one vacant room, some boys aged about 14-15 years came and knocked the door asking for cigarettes and beer, etc. At this PW-2 stated that they have not even opened the shop and they have nothing with them and as such send back the boys. PW-2 further stated before the trial Court that the boys again came, knocked the door asking for the same thing, at which PW-2 offered themthe same reply and requested them not to disturb. He thereafter stated that the petitioner who was in an inebriated state came and knocked the door, at which PW-2 again told him that he has nothing with him and that the petitioner left. PW-2 thereafter stated that about half an hour later when he closedthe shop and was going to his residence, the petitioner came in a motorcycle, stopped near himand attacked him with dao on his back and turning towards him, the petitioner also tried to hit him, which this witness saved by stretching his hand thereby suffering cut injuries on both his hands. He also stated that after getting injured he entered inside the gate and fell on the ground unconscious and that he regained his consciousness in the hospital. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed the cross examination of PW-2 and stated that thedefence did not confront this witness with the different statements that he stated before the investigating officer. He as such stated that there were contradictions between the statements of this witness before the police as well as before the Trial court and the said contradictions were not brought on record while cross examining this witness.He as such submitted that had the contradiction been brought on record by placing the same before this witness and thereafter proving the same through the statements of the investigating officer, the reliability of this witness would be shattered and he would be arrayedas a wholly unreliable witness. 6. 6. The counsel for the petitioner similarly had submitted that the statement of the other eyewitness i.e. Rohim Ali before the investigating officer and before the trial court are also different in nature. He placed the statement of Rohim Ali who stated before the investigating officer that on 12-03-2013, PW No. 2 invited him to the place where his father had shops to discuss about business and that at around 9 p.m. he along with two other friends and PW-2 were sitting in the shop and discussing about business. He thereafter stated that due to the hot weather conditions, he and others came out of the shop and were sitting in a junction area. At that junction, one person came in a bike and started arguing as to why they were sitting so late at night and when PW-2 replied that his house was nearby, that person started quarreling with all of them. He also stated that when they dispersed from that place and he was leaving with PW-2, the same person arrived on his bike armed with a machete and when he and PW-2 started running away, the same person chased and attacked PW-2 and assaulted him. He thereafter stated that he rushed to the house of PW-2 and informed his parents who came there and found PW-2 in an unconscious condition. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner thereafter placed the statements made by PW-3 before the learned trial court. In the said statements, PW-3 stated that he was called by PW-2 to repair his shop and while they were repairing the shop, some boys asked for pan masala and betel nut and when they refused to give the same, the petitioner argued with them. He thereafter stated that the petitioner went back and brought a machete with him and with the said weapon, the petitioner hit him on his back. This witness again stated that when he tried to flee from there, the petitioner chased him with his bike and that in his presence, the petitioner inflicted cut injury on both the arms of PW-2with the said weapon. He thereafter stated that he went inside the house of PW-2 and informed the mother who came to the place of occurrence. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter placed the statements of PW-3 in his cross-examination. He thereafter stated that he went inside the house of PW-2 and informed the mother who came to the place of occurrence. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter placed the statements of PW-3 in his cross-examination. In the said cross-examination, one contradiction was placed before the said witness, to which the witness replied that he did not state before the police that he and PW-2 came out of the shop due to the hot weather. Since he admitted he did not say, the said contradiction stands proved and this is the only contradiction which was placed and proved. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner as such had submitted that the story projected by Rahim Ali, that is PW-3 before the investigating officer differed substantially from his statement before the trial court and during the cross-examination, the defence had not put the relevant contradictions before the said witness.He as such stated that had the contradictions been put to PW- 3 and the contradiction being proved through the investigating officer, PW-3 would have also become unreliable in the eyes of law. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that he is not raising the ground of change of counsels in the instant case. He in fact stressed on the fact that cross-examination of the said witnesses, i.e. 2 and 3, were not done properly and the same would have a big impact on the case at hand. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted before this court that the instant application is filed under Section 442, read with Section 528 of BNSS 2023, thereby invoking the inherent power of this court for interest of justice.He placed the following decisions to substantiate his point. (1) Godrej Pacific Tech Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd., Reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Crl.) 455. (2) P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of AP, reported in (2012) 3 SCC (Crl.) (3) Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan &Anr., (Judgement Delivered by Hon. Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.000842/2016 on 05.09.2016). 11. On the other hand, Ms. Jini, the learned Addl. (2) P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of AP, reported in (2012) 3 SCC (Crl.) (3) Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan &Anr., (Judgement Delivered by Hon. Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.000842/2016 on 05.09.2016). 11. On the other hand, Ms. Jini, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, has taken the preliminary ground of challengeviz., that the instant petition is not maintainable under a revisional jurisdiction since the order challenged by the petitioner i.e., rejection of the petition filed for recalling of witnesses, is an interlocutory order and there is a bar that revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order.To substantiate her point, she placed a decision delivered by the Apex Courtin Sethuraman vs. Rajama Nikam, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that the order passed by the trial court, refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under section 311Cr.P.C were interlocutory orders and that no revision lies against those orders. She further stated that there are no major contradictions in the statements of PW 2 and 3 before the IO and before the trial court.As far as the root of the case is concerned, the statements of both the witnesses remain consistent according to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. She also stated that the trial was initiated in the year 2015 and that it is 10 years as of now. She stated that PW 2 and 3 were examined long back on 3-3-2016 and 17-5-2018 and that if they are again recalled for examination, the same would cause further delay and it would thereby cause injustice to the victims as well as the society. She placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in A.G. versus Shivkumar Yadav and another, reported in 2016 to SCC 402, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that recalling of the witnesses could be permitted only if it is essential for the just decision of the case and that it has to be shown that recall is necessary for ensuring fair trial and that the trial would suffer without recall. The Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor had also raised the ground that change of counsel cannot be considered to recalling witness as has been held in the aforesaid decision. 12. The Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor had also raised the ground that change of counsel cannot be considered to recalling witness as has been held in the aforesaid decision. 12. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties as well as have gone through the records of the case. In the backdrop of the aforesaid arguments, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether recalling of PW-2 and 3 for examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C would be proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. It is noticed in the instant case that there are two eye witnesses and they are PW-2, the victim who was assaulted and PW-3, who was with PW-2, as it can be seen from the documents on record. The contradictions in the statements of the said witnesses as projected by the petitioner is examined here in below. 14. PW No. 2 had stated before the investigating officer that he along with PW-3 and two other friends were discussing about the business and finding the weather hot they came out and sat in an open area and at that juncture, one local boy who was identified as petitioner later, reached the spot and argued with him and that little thereafter, when he was heading towards his home, the accused came in his bike and assaulted him. In his statement before the trial court, he stated that he with two other boys along with PW-3 were working inside the room and that some boys repeatedly came, knocked the door and asked for cigarettes and beer and that he had sent them away. He further stated that when he left the place and was going back to his house, the petitioner came in a motorcycle and assaulted him. 15. It is noticed that before the trial court, PW-2 did not state about his coming out of the shop due to the hot weather and sitting in the open area. He also did not state that while he was in the open area, the petitioner came and argued with him. It is also noticed that PW-2 in his statement before the investigating officer did not state that the boys came and asked for cigarette, beer etc. It is therefore noticed that there is a difference in the story projected by PW-2 in his statements before the investigating officer and the trial court. 16. It is also noticed that PW-2 in his statement before the investigating officer did not state that the boys came and asked for cigarette, beer etc. It is therefore noticed that there is a difference in the story projected by PW-2 in his statements before the investigating officer and the trial court. 16. As far as PW-3 is concerned, it is also noticed that there is a difference in the story projected by him. In his statements before the investigating officer, he stated that he on being invited by PW-2 was sitting in a shop and that he came out of the shop due to the hot weather and that at around 11:30 pm, one person came in a bike and argued as to why they were sitting so late at night. He further stated that when he and PW-2 were heading towards the residence, the same person again came in a bike armed with a machete and attacked PW- 2 which resulted in many injuries on PW-2. He in his statement before the trial court, he stated that when he and PW-2 were repairing a shop, some boys came and asked for pan masala and betel nut and that thereafter, the petitioner came in a bike and asked for the same things. He thereafter stated that the petitioner after arguing with him went back and came with a machete and attacked him on his back and that in his presence, the petitioner inflicted cut injuries on both the arms of PW-2. 17. It is noticed that this witness too did not state before the Trial Court that when he and other boys as well as PW-2 fell hot and came out of the shop and were sitting in an open area, the petitioner came and argued. He also did not state before the trial court that the petitioner asked them as to why they were sitting so late at night in the said open area. It is also noticed that PW-3 had not stated before the investigating officer that initially some boys and thereafter, the petitioner came and asked for pan masala and betel nut from them. It is therefore seen that there is difference between the statement made by PW-3 before the investigating officer and the trial court and the said contradictions were not placed during the cross examination of the said witness. It is therefore seen that there is difference between the statement made by PW-3 before the investigating officer and the trial court and the said contradictions were not placed during the cross examination of the said witness. The only contradiction that was placed and was proved by PW-3 during his cross examination is that he had not stated before the Police that he and PW-2 came out of the shop due to hot weather and were sitting in the open area. 18. It is no res integra that witnesses are arrayed in three categories: (1) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable (iii) partly reliable or partly unreliable. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions that there is no problem with regard to the witnesses in the category of the first 2 but if a witness falls under the third category there arises problem. If the witness is found partly reliable and partly unreliable, his evidence has to be considered deeply by the trial court. In the instant case, PW-2 and 3 been the only eye witnesses and if their version is demolished, the prosecution case would get weak, as can be seen from the facts of the instant case. 19. The object underlined under Section 311 CrPC (Section 348 of BNSS, 2023) is that there should not be failure of justice due to mistake of either party in bringing the available evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the sentence of the witnesses examined from the either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential for the just decision of the case. Section 311 Cr.P.C (corresponding to Section 348 of BNSS) is quoted below:- “S. 311: Powers to summon materials witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” 20. A bare perusal of the ingredients of Section 311 Cr.P.C makes it crystal clear that the criminal court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine such person even if the evidence on both the sides are closed and the jurisdiction of the Court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense. The said guidelines appeared to be the only safeguards and that the only requirement of justice and examination of any person would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of A.P (supra) had categorically held that Section 311 CrPC is couched in the widest possible terms and calls for no limitation as regard to the stage at which the powers of the court would be exercised or with regard to the manner in which it should be exercised. In the said judgment it is also observed by relying upon in another judgment delivered in Hoffman Andreas vs. Inspector of Customs reported in (2000) 10 SCC 430 , that even in case of change of counsels, the court can adopt latitude and a liberal view in the interest of justice, particularly when the court has unbridled powers in the matter as enshrined in section 311 Cr.P.C of the court. 21. It was further observed that the trial is after all for the prisoners and the Court should afford every opportunity to them in the fairest mannerpossible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in yet another judgment delivered in Swapan Kumar Chatterji vs. CBI, reported in (2019) 14 SCC 328 , had observed in the following terms. “It is well settled that the power conferred Under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has wide power under this Section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.……………………” 22. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.……………………” 22. Further, in Jahira Habibullah Sheikh & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 374 , the Apex Court reiterated the extent of powers under section 311 and held that “The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The Section is not limited only for the benefit of the Accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the Section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the Accused. The Section is a general Section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is "at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code". It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the Section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind” 23. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, this court finds that every opportunity should be afforded to the accused person in the fairest manner possible. The accused is considered innocent till he is convicted in the justice delivery system of our country and the courts should be liberal in the interest of justice. It is noticed in the instant case that there are discrepancies in the evidence of both the witnesses. Even if the same does not go to the root of the case, the story projected by both the witnesses from the inception i.e. as to how the offence was committed, are different. 24. It is noticed in the instant case that there are discrepancies in the evidence of both the witnesses. Even if the same does not go to the root of the case, the story projected by both the witnesses from the inception i.e. as to how the offence was committed, are different. 24. This court is conscious of the fact that recalling of the witnesses is after so many years, more specifically after 9 years with regard to PW. No. 2 and after 7 years with regard to PW No.3. The delay caused has a huge impact on human memory apart from breeding cynicism about the competency of the judicial system to decide cases, within a time frame. Referring to the same, as submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that the prosecution may suffer prejudice on account of this belated recall, may not be wholly without any basis. However, this court is of the view that denying opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witness would have a more unreasonable impact than protecting the prosecution against a possible prejudice. The trial should be fair in any circumstances and the same is sacrosanct in our judicial system. 25. The further argument raised by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that order rejecting to recall witnesses is an interlocutory order and the same cannot be assailed under the revisional jurisdiction is in the opinion of this Court, not sustainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has preferred this application not only under the revisional jurisdiction but also under the inherent jurisdiction provided under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. Although it is a settled proposition of law that an application should not be preferred under both revisional jurisdiction and the inherent power of the High Court, however, in the facts of the instance case, this application is considered for the ends of justice. The extent of power under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 of BNSS) is explained by the Apex Court as follows: “It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart - from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law.” 26. In view of the findings mentioned above, this Court allows this criminal petition by setting aside the Order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 45/2015 and direct that PW-2 and 3 may be recalled by the trial court and an opportunity to cross- examine the said witnesses be afforded to the petitioner. Further in viewof the long lapse of time in the trial, this Court directs that the witness may be examined on two dates of hearing, oneeach for each witness without causing any unnecessary delay in the instant case. Further, the trial court shall endeavour to conclude the examination of the two witnesses expeditiously and without unnecessary delay. 27. The parties shall appear on the next date fixed by the trial court for examination of witnesses and the said trial court would do the needful. 28. The petition is disposed off with the above directions.