The Supreme Court of India reiterated that the power under Section 311 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only when the proposed evidence is indispensable for discovering the truth, and not to fill lacunae or prolong trials. In Mayankkumar Natwarlal & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., the prosecution sought to examine the deceased’s minor daughter as a witness nearly seven years after the incident, after completion of evidence of 21 prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court rejected the application, but the High Court allowed it. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court found no material indicating the child’s presence at the scene, as neither the FIR nor earlier statements mentioned her as an eyewitness. The Court highlighted the tender age of the child at the time of the incident, the long delay, and the real risk of tutoring, particularly since she was residing with the complainant’s family. Memory at such a young age, the Court observed, is fragile and vulnerable to influence. The Court held that permitting such evidence at an advanced stage would cause serious prejudice to the accused and unnecessarily delay the trial. Restoring the Trial Court’s order, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 311 CrPC is meant to serve the ends of justice, not to repair weaknesses in the prosecution case.