State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed 2026 INSC 584
Bench – Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Delivered on May 26, 2026
Facts:
On June 27, 2016, a prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the Respondent-accused (Panna Ahmed) alleging offences under Sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 376(1) (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
The prosecutrix claimed she visited the Respondent’s house on the morning of June 27, 2016, to discuss house rent. She alleged he forcibly confined her, raped her, and threatened to kill her if she spoke out.
The trial began in 2017. The prosecutrix (PW-1) was first cross-examined in June and July 2018. Later, the prosecution sought to recall her, which was eventually allowed by the High Court in 2019, leading to further examination in August and November 2019.
On December 14, 2023, four years after her last examination and seven years after the FIR, the Respondent filed an application under Section 311 CrPC to recall her for further cross-examination. The ground was an oversight regarding certain aspects of Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the mobile numbers of both the prosecutrix and the Respondent.
The Trial Court rejected the application on February 6, 2024, noting the inordinate delay and stating it appeared to be an attempt to protract the trial.
The High Court of Tripura set aside the Trial Court’s order, allowing the recall of the prosecutrix specifically to be questioned regarding the CDRs. The State of Tripura then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in permitting the recall of a prosecutrix in a rape case for further cross-examination after an unexplained delay of four years, when she had already been examined and cross-examined on four separate occasions.
Reasoning by Court:
Inordinate Delay: The application was filed nearly four years after the completion of her previous cross-examination without any satisfactory explanation for the delay. In the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2019) 14 SCC 328, it was held that the power under Section 311 CrPC should be exercised with great caution, circumspection, and only for strong, valid reasons.
Adequate Opportunity Already Provided: The prosecutrix had already been subjected to detailed and extensive cross-examination across several hearings in 2018 and 2019. The Respondent had ample opportunity to test her veracity.
Nature of the Evidence (CDRs): The CDRs used as a ground for recall were actually filed by the prosecution with the chargesheet and had been part of the record throughout. The defense was always aware of this material and could have used it earlier; Section 311 cannot be used to fill lacunae in the defense case.
Hardship to the Witness: Recalling a victim of a heinous crime like rape multiple times inflicts unjustifiable hardship and forces her to relive the ordeal of deposition repeatedly. The Court emphasized that witnesses, especially victims in sensitive cases, should not be expected to appear in court repeatedly. It was held in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr. (2016) 2 SCC 402 that recall is not a matter of course and must be balanced against the hardship to witnesses and uncalled-for delays in trial.
Status of the Trial: By the time the recall was sought, 19 other prosecution witnesses had already been examined. The trial had been pending for over eight years and needed to reach an expeditious conclusion.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the State of Tripura and set aside the High Court’s order. It restored the Trial Court’s order rejecting the recall application. Finally, the Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial by the end of the year 2026.