Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXIV: General Provisions As to Inquiries and Trials
Section 311: Power to summon material witness, or examine person present
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
Any court can, at any stage, summon a witness, examine anyone present, or recall and re-examine a witness. It must do so if the evidence appears essential to a just decision.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 311
-
Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana.
Conviction of the appellant u/s.302, IPC based on the statement/ dying declaration (Exh. P-34) of the deceased, if ought to be set aside.
-
Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether Trial Court ought to have given proper time and opportunity to the legal aid defence counsel to prepare the matter and should have deferred the cross-examination of PW-1 by a reasonable time so as to ensure…
-
K.P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of A-15 under Sections 217, 218, Penal Code, 1860 and ss.3(2)(i), 4, SC/ST Act, 1989 and modifying the conviction and sentence of A-14, while…
-
Ramesh A. Naika v. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
Appellant-R, a bank manager, was convicted of murdering his two minor children, along with his sister-in-law and mother-in-law, in June 2010. His motive stemmed from disapproval of his sister-in-law’s relationship,…
-
Ashutosh Pathak v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is two-fold. Firstly, the in-part acceptance of his application u/s.311 of the CrPC and consequent non-summoning of witness-K. Secondly, closure of the opportunity to…
-
Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
a. Whether the Trial Court followed the basic requirements of a fairly conducted trial, in accordance with well-established prepositions of law, before imposing death sentence upon the Appellant/Accused? b. Whether the…
-
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder of the deceased and imposition of death sentence.
- M/S Kasan Varnisha and Paint Industries v. Sujay Thapa
- Durgesh Paul Sachdev v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
- State v. Mohd Rashid
- State v. Ramesh @ Bengali
- Shivam v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- Anil Kumar v. Parveen Kumar
- Anil Kumar v. Princy
- Bhawna Grover v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors
- Sachin Kumar Aggarwal v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors
-
Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.
Whether the High Court fell in error in remanding the matter to Trial Court and giving liberty to the accused to cross-examine a prosecution witness and allowing the prosecution to lead further evidence in the form of…
-
K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.
Under what circumstances could the power be invoked for further investigation and whether on the facts, further investigation was warranted.
- Mutivision Communications System Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Harender Singh
- Shri Dhruv Jalan v. Smt. Rosy Gaur
- Shri Dhruv Jalan v. Smt. Rosy Gaur
- Shri Dhruv Jalan v. Smt. Rosy Gaur
- Sanjay Malik Alias Sant Sevak Das v. The State of NCT of Dehi and Anr
- Tkreeb v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Delhi Cantonment Board v. Deen Dayal Tanwar
- Delhi Cantonment Board v. Sh Deen Dayal Tanwar
- Krishananad Dubey & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Abhishek Pal and Others v. The State (Nct of Delhi) and Another
- Ravi Shankar Alias Tuntun & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Abhishek Pal and Others v. The State (Nct of Delhi) and Another
- Sarvodaya Texstyle Pvt. Ltd v. The State(Govt. of Nct, Delhi) & Ors
- Sarvodaya Texstyle Pvt. Ltd v. The State(Govt. of Nct, Delhi) & Ors
- Sarvodaya Texstyle Pvt. Ltd v. The State(Govt. of Nct, Delhi) & Ors
- Sarvodaya Texstyle Pvt. Ltd v. The State(Govt. of Nct, Delhi) & Ors
- Bhanu Raghav v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Jitender Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi
-
Gaurav Maini v. The State of Haryana
Courts below, if justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B IPC.
- Deepak & Anr v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Subhash Chand v. Manoj Balhara
- Vls Finance Ltd v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. R Vasudevan & Ors
- Central Bureau of Investigtation v. R. Vasudevan & Ors
- State (Nct) of Delhi v. Karan Singh Yadav & Ors
-
Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT
Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder.…
- Aims Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors v. Brahama International Llp
- Nageena Arora v. State & Anr
- Raja Ram v. Sh Pawan Kumar Verma
- International Diamond Services Ltd v. Dimexon Diamond Ltd
- Rahul Darbari v. Arun Kumar Khobragade & Ors
- Rahul Darbari v. Arun Kumar Khobragade & Ors
- State v. Virender @ Billu & Ors
- Narender Singh v. State
- M/S Magnum Resources Pvt Ltd v. M/S India Sewing Machine Company & Anr
- Kasim v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors
- Rajesh Marwah v. State & Anr
- Mrs. Kanta Goel v. Mr. Atul Gupta
- Nilesh Sharma v. Kamal Garg
- Suresh Kumar v. State & Anr
- Yogendra Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Rakesh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- Vinod Kumar & Anr v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr
- Rajesh Marwah v. State & Anr
- Shailesh Rai v. Surender Singh
- Aditya Sarda v. Arjun Singh
-
State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida
The High Court rejected the applications filed by the prosecution u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of PW-189 and to permit the prosecution to produce the report and the certificate u/s. 65B of the Evidence Act,…
-
Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu & Anr.
Bail granted to Respondent No.1 accused of offences u/ss.109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 r/w s.34, IPC, if to be cancelled, in view of events subsequent to the grant of bail. Bail – Scope of interference – Respondent No.1…
- Mohd. Irshad v. The State (Nct of Delhi)
- Tarak Nath Gupta & Anr v. State of Delhi & Anr
- Miss A Through Guardian v. State & Anr
- Vikram Kathuria v. State
- Smt Reeta Kalonia v. State & Anr
- Vishwa Pratap @ Bopy v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi Through Sho P S Bhalswa Dairy
- Mohd Hasan@Nanhe v. State
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Iqbal Gazi & Ors
- Harendra Rai v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
- Raghuvinder Singh v. Rajiv Chadha
- M S Kavitra Exports Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Sh Aman Bansal v. M S Kaaya U K Ltd Through Its Director Sh Purshottam Lal
- Rakesh v. State of NCT of Delhii & Anr
- Sanjeev Chanana v. M/S. Telestra Trade Place Pvt. Ltd
- Rajesh Jindal v. Sanjay Khurana
- Kundan Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation ( Cbi)
- Antosh v. State
- Madhu Bala v. State
- M/S Bharat Export Overseas & Ors v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr
- Ram Tej v. State
- Mr Rajesh Kumar Khatri v. State of Delhi, Through C.B.I
- Jitender @ Jitu v. State
- Tarun @ Cheetah v. State
- Bigan Shah v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Sanjeev Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi
- State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal
- Praveen Gusain@Tinku@Mota v. State
- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of
- Deepak Mohan & Anr v. State NCT Delhi & Anr
- M/S. Bls Infrastructure Limited v. M/S. Rajwant Singh & Others
- Court on Its Own Motion v. Rehman Aftab Alam
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Abhishek Verma & Anr
- Shri Kishan Lal Agarwal v. Central Bureau Ofinvestigation
- Deepak @ Deepu v. State
- Sh. Gurvinder Pal Singh v. Smt. Ravinder Kaur