Madras High Court Sets Aside Recall of Investigating Officer Sought to Introduce CDR and Bank Records in Murder Trial
Facts
The petitioner, Anbu, was facing trial in S.C. No. 187 of 2022 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kumbakonam, for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC.
According to the prosecution, the deceased, Venkatesan, was a Regional Manager of UNILINK Company. Agricultural products worth approximately ₹14 lakh had allegedly been entrusted to the petitioner for sale, but the sale proceeds were not remitted to the company.
On 23 September 2021, the deceased and prosecution witnesses allegedly met the petitioner and demanded either return of the products or payment of the amount. The petitioner allegedly sought two days’ time and later took the deceased alone in his car.
The prosecution claimed that the deceased subsequently contacted PW-1, stated that he was with the petitioner and requested money for liquor. PW-1 allegedly transferred ₹1,000 and later ₹500 through PhonePe. The deceased and PW-1 were also said to have shared their locations.
The petitioner was accused of attacking the deceased with a billhook and abandoning his body in water.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. PW-14, the Investigating Officer, was examined and cross-examined on 25 November 2024. The petitioner was thereafter questioned under Section 313 CrPC, corresponding to Section 351 BNSS, and the matter had substantially progressed toward defence evidence and final arguments.
At that stage, the prosecution filed an application under Section 348 BNSS, corresponding to Section 311 CrPC, seeking recall of PW-14 to mark additional documents, including:
- call detail records;
- tower-location details;
- IMEI particulars;
- SIM subscriber details;
- bank account statements; and
- transaction records relating to the deceased, the petitioner, PW-1 and UNILINK Company.
The Trial Court allowed the recall application on 9 September 2025, holding that the documents were necessary to complete the chain of circumstances. The petitioner challenged that order before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution could recall the Investigating Officer after closure of prosecution evidence and examination of the accused.
- Whether the proposed electronic and banking records were merely relevant or were truly essential to the just decision of the murder case.
- Whether the recall application was intended to correct an inadvertent omission or to fill lacunae exposed during cross-examination.
- Whether the Trial Court had recorded adequate, tangible and legally sustainable reasons before exercising power under Section 348 BNSS.
- Whether permitting the prosecution to introduce additional evidence at an advanced stage would prejudice the petitioner’s right to a fair and speedy trial under Article 21.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Trial Court’s order was mechanical, cryptic and unsupported by proper reasons.
PW-14 had already been fully examined and cross-examined. During cross-examination, the defence had elicited material favourable to the petitioner and exposed deficiencies in the prosecution case.
According to the petitioner, the prosecution sought recall only after realising the effect of the cross-examination. The proposed exercise was therefore not intended to clarify evidence but to repair weaknesses in the prosecution case.
The petitioner contended that the documents sought to be introduced were not indispensable for deciding whether he had committed murder.
Call records, tower-location details and SIM particulars could, at the highest, indicate contact, location or support the “last seen” theory. Bank statements could only indicate a monetary dispute or motive. Neither category of document, by itself, could establish the offence under Section 302 IPC.
It was also argued that:
- the alleged weapon had not been properly recovered and proved;
- the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete;
- the prosecution had already been given full opportunity to produce the documents;
- the defence had conducted its case on the basis of the evidence already closed; and
- reopening the prosecution case at the final stage would cause serious prejudice.
The petitioner relied upon decisions including Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, State of NCT of Delhi v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, Natasha Singh v. CBI, Umar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan and Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that Section 348 BNSS gives the criminal court wide power to summon, recall or re-examine a witness at any stage where the evidence appears essential to a just decision.
The prosecution submitted that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and, therefore, every link in the chain was important.
The proposed records were stated to be relevant for establishing:
- the motive arising from the alleged ₹14 lakh business dispute;
- the last-seen circumstance;
- the movements and location of the petitioner and deceased;
- communication between the parties; and
- the alleged PhonePe transactions.
The State characterised the omission to mark the documents earlier as an inadvertent lapse rather than an inherent lacuna.
It was further argued that a criminal court’s duty is to discover the truth and not merely to take advantage of mistakes committed by either side.
According to the State, no prejudice would be caused because the petitioner would be permitted to further cross-examine PW-14 after recall.
Analysis of the Law
Scope of Section 348 BNSS
Section 348 BNSS corresponds to Section 311 CrPC. It permits a court, at any stage of an inquiry or trial, to summon, examine, recall or re-examine any person.
The provision contains two components:
- a discretionary power to summon or recall a witness; and
- a mandatory duty to do so where the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.
However, the breadth of the power does not make it unrestricted. It must be exercised judicially, cautiously and for advancing justice.
The provision cannot be used:
- to give an unfair advantage to either party;
- to change the nature of the prosecution case;
- to cause prejudice to the accused;
- to permit a disguised retrial; or
- to fill inherent lacunae after the weakness has been exposed.
Relevance Versus Essentiality
The High Court drew a clear distinction between evidence that is merely relevant or useful and evidence that is essential.
The expression “essential to the just decision of the case” imposes a higher standard than simple relevance.
Every document capable of strengthening the prosecution case is not necessarily indispensable. Before recalling a witness at an advanced stage, the Trial Court must explain why the absence of the proposed evidence would make a just decision impossible or materially unsafe.
Advanced Stage of Trial
The power may technically be exercised “at any stage,” but that phrase does not dispense with the requirement of reasons.
The later the stage of trial, the stronger the justification must be.
Where:
- prosecution evidence has closed;
- the Investigating Officer has been cross-examined;
- the accused has been examined; and
- the defence has structured its case on the existing record,
the court must insist on a higher degree of judicial satisfaction before allowing additional prosecution evidence.
Fair-Trial Considerations
Fair trial under Article 21 protects the prosecution, the victim and the accused. However, fairness does not mean that the prosecution must be granted unlimited opportunities to improve its case.
The court must examine:
- whether the documents were part of the final report;
- whether they were supplied to the accused;
- whether the defence had prior notice;
- why they were not produced earlier;
- whether further examination of the accused would become necessary; and
- the degree of prejudice likely to be caused.
The Trial Court had not examined these considerations.
Precedent Analysis
Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 461
The Supreme Court held that the evidence sought to be introduced must be essential to the just decision of the case. The power to recall must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection.
The Madras High Court applied this principle to hold that the Trial Court was required to assess the indispensability of each category of document rather than merely state that the documents would complete the chain of circumstances.
State of NCT of Delhi v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402
The Supreme Court held that a general observation that recall is necessary for a fair trial is insufficient. Tangible reasons must be recorded demonstrating why the trial would become unfair or incomplete without the proposed evidence.
The impugned order failed this test because it merely described the documents as vital without explaining how their absence would prevent a just decision.
Natasha Singh v. CBI, (2013) 2 SCC 402
This decision reiterates that Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to fill lacunae or cause serious prejudice to the accused.
The High Court found that the prosecution had already examined PW-14 and closed its evidence. Permitting recall after the defence had exposed omissions would, in the circumstances, amount to allowing the prosecution to strengthen weak links retrospectively.
Other Authorities
The petitioner also relied upon Umar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan and Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan.
These decisions supported the broader proposition that recall is not routine and must be based on judicial necessity rather than convenience or an attempt to repair an incomplete prosecution case.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court examined the proposed records in two categories.
Call Records and Location Evidence
The first category comprised call-detail records, tower-location data, IMEI details and SIM particulars.
The prosecution witnesses had already spoken about:
- the deceased and petitioner being together;
- the petitioner allegedly taking the deceased in his car;
- telephone calls made by the deceased;
- location sharing; and
- PhonePe transfers.
The electronic records might corroborate those allegations. However, the Trial Court did not explain why such corroboration was so indispensable that the case could not be justly decided without it.
The fact that the prosecution case was circumstantial did not automatically permit recall. The statutory test of essentiality still had to be independently satisfied.
Bank and Transaction Records
The second category comprised bank statements and transaction details.
The prosecution sought to rely upon them to establish motive arising from the alleged business dispute.
The High Court observed that motive is relevant in a circumstantial-evidence case, but motive alone cannot prove murder.
Even if the banking documents established monetary dealings or non-payment, they would not directly connect the petitioner with the homicidal act. The Trial Court had not explained how these records were indispensable to deciding culpability under Section 302 IPC.
Failure to Record Reasons
The Trial Court had simply observed that marking the documents would complete the chain of circumstances.
The High Court held that the Trial Court should have identified:
- which precise link was missing;
- how each document would supply that link;
- why the document was not produced earlier;
- whether it formed part of the relied-upon documents;
- whether the petitioner had received it;
- what prejudice would result; and
- whether recall would require further questioning of the accused.
The absence of this analysis demonstrated non-application of mind.
Lacuna or Inadvertent Omission
The High Court accepted that a genuine oversight may sometimes be corrected. However, the distinction depends upon the facts.
Here, the prosecution sought to introduce documents only after PW-14 had been cross-examined and the accused had been questioned. The documents were intended to strengthen the chain of circumstances rather than merely clarify an ambiguity.
In those circumstances, the proposed recall amounted to filling lacunae and would cause serious prejudice to the accused.
The High Court emphasised that Section 348 BNSS is intended to prevent failure of justice, not to provide a second opportunity to a negligent litigant.
Conclusion
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the Criminal Original Petition.
It set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 9 September 2025 permitting recall of PW-14, the Investigating Officer, for marking call records, location data, SIM details and banking records.
The High Court held that the Trial Court had failed to record strong, valid and tangible reasons establishing that the proposed evidence was essential to the just decision of the case.
The order was found to be mechanical, unsupported by independent judicial analysis and prejudicial to the petitioner because it effectively allowed the prosecution to fill lacunae at the final stage of the murder trial.
The Trial Court was directed to proceed with S.C. No. 187 of 2022 and dispose of it expeditiously, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations on the merits.
Case Details
Case: Anbu v. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
Case Number: Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 1327 of 2026, with Crl. M.P. (MD) Nos. 1406 and 1407 of 2026
Judge: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice L. Victoria Gowri
Date: 1 June 2026
Result: Petition allowed; order recalling the Investigating Officer under Section 348 BNSS set aside, and the Trial Court directed to complete the murder trial expeditiously.
