Court Must Summon Material Witness U/S 311 CrPC If Essential For Decision; Prosecution’s Omission No Ground To Deny Such Opportunity: Rajasthan High Court

The Court was hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of an order whereby the trial court had rejected an application filed by the accused under Section 311 CrPC for summoning a doctor who had prepared the medical reports relied upon during the investigation.

A Single Bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu, while referring to Section 311 CrPC, observed: “A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that very wide powers have been conferred upon the Court to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and reexamine any witness already examined, … The second part of the Section in fact mandates the summoning of a witness by the court if the court is of the opinion that such evidence is essential for the just decision of the case”.

“Merely because the prosecution did not cite the said doctor as a witness cannot be a ground to deny the petitioners the opportunity to summon such a material expert witness, when his evidence appears to be relevant and necessary for the just decision of the case”, the Bench added.

Advocate Hardik Vyas appeared for the petitioners, while Ramesh Dewasi, Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State.

Background

The case arose from an FIR alleging offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code in relation to a vehicular collision followed by an altercation, resulting in injuries to the complainant and another individual.

During the investigation, medical reports and opinions regarding the nature of injuries were obtained, and a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. The prosecution cited 21 witnesses, out of which 18 had already been examined during the trial, with only the Investigating Officer remaining.

It emerged during the trial that the injury reports and medical opinion had been prepared by a doctor, Dr Sanjay Shah, who had examined the injured. However, the said doctor was neither cited as a prosecution witness nor examined during the trial.

The petitioners filed an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking the summoning of the said doctor, contending that his evidence was crucial to determine the nature and cause of injuries, particularly in light of their defence that the injuries did not support the prosecution’s case.

The trial court rejected the application on the ground that it was the prerogative of the prosecution to decide which witnesses were to be examined, leading to the present petition.

Court’s Observation

The Court began by analysing the scope of Section 311 CrPC and emphasised its broad and purposive nature. It reiterated that the provision empowers the Court at any stage of inquiry or trial to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any witness already examined. More importantly, it held that the second part of the provision is mandatory in nature.

It observed that the second part of the Section in fact mandates the summoning of a witness by the court if the court thinks that such evidence is essential for the just decision of the case.

Relying on authoritative precedents, including Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013), the Court reiterated that the power under Section 311 is to be exercised to ensure that the judgment is not rendered on an incomplete or inconclusive presentation of facts and to secure the ends of justice. It emphasised that the object of the provision is the discovery of truth and that courts must not remain passive where relevant evidence is available but not brought on record.

The Court further relied on Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh to hold that such powers can be exercised even after the closure of evidence and that the essentiality of the evidence for a just decision is the governing test. It observed that the court is not a “hapless bystander” and must actively ensure that all necessary evidence is brought before it.

Referring to K.P. Tamilmaran v. State, the Court reiterated that the power under Section 311 is couched in the widest terms and may be exercised at any stage to ensure that the Court is not deprived of valuable evidence necessary for adjudication.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the Investigating Officer himself had admitted during cross-examination that the medical opinion regarding injuries could only be given by the doctor concerned. It further noted that the medical documents prepared by the doctor were already part of the record and had been relied upon during the investigation.

The Court observed that despite the centrality of medical evidence, the doctor who prepared the reports had not been examined, which rendered the evidentiary basis incomplete. It held: “the cause and nature of the injuries constitute a crucial aspect of the trial, and the examination of the doctor who prepared the medical report is undoubtedly essential to assist the Court in appreciating the evidence… and in arriving at a just decision of the case.”

The Court further held that the view taken by the trial court that it is solely the prerogative of the prosecution to decide which witnesses to examine overlooks the true scope of Section 311 CrPC, which vests independent power in the Court to summon witnesses where necessary for just adjudication.

Conclusion

The Court held that the examination of the doctor was essential for a just decision of the case and that the trial court had erred in rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC.

Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, the application for summoning the doctor was allowed, and the trial court was directed to summon the said witness and permit examination and cross-examination in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Narayan Lal Rebari & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:14230)

Click here to read/download Judgment