Accused Cannot Take Advantage Of Prosecution's Laxity, Appellate Court Can Summon Doctor To Prove MLR: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that an appellate court is fully empowered under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to allow additional evidence by summoning a medical officer to prove a Medico-Legal Report (MLR), observing that the defence cannot take advantage of the prosecution's procedural laxity.

A single bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi affirmed that "the purpose of a Trial is to bring forth the unadulterated truth" and the victim ought not to be penalized for the omissions of the investigating agency.

The proceedings arose from FIR No. 67 of 2010 registered under Sections 323, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), wherein the trial court acquitted the petitioner and a co-accused primarily because the victim's MLR was not proved in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the victim preferred a criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, and moved an application under Section 391 CrPC seeking to examine the medical officer who prepared the MLR. The appellate court partly allowed the plea to summon the doctor, prompting the acquitted accused to invoke Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking to quash the order.

The primary question before the court was whether an appellate court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 391 CrPC, can permit the examination of a material witness whose testimony was omitted before the trial court. The court was also called upon to determine whether summoning the doctor to formally prove the MLR impermissibly amounted to filling up a lacuna in the prosecution's case.

Defence Cannot Benefit From Investigative Slips Or Prosecution Laxity

Justice Bedi observed that a perusal of the trial court's judgment revealed that the failure to exhibit the victim's MLR in accordance with law formed one of the primary grounds for acquitting the accused. The High Court took note of the order sheets showing that the prosecution had failed to procure the doctor's presence because he had been transferred and his fresh address had not been traced by the investigating agency.

The court emphatically ruled that such systemic failure on the part of the prosecution cannot enure to the benefit of the accused to thwart substantive justice. Justice Bedi stressed that trials are designed to elicit the truth and technical remissness cannot preclude the appellate court from exercising statutory discretion to receive crucial evidence.

Appellate Powers Under Section 391 CrPC Aimed At Preventing Failure Of Justice

Examining the ambit of appellate powers, the court drew heavily from the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2004), reiterating that Section 391 CrPC operates as a vital exception to ordinary appellate procedure. The statutory mechanism exists precisely to prevent a guilty person from escaping justice through careless or ignorant proceedings before the trial court.

The bench reiterated that Section 391 and Section 386 CrPC must be harmoniously construed, enabling the appellate forum to call for additional evidence whenever it finds such material essential to arrive at a just and proper finding. The community, acting through the public prosecutor, is entitled to equal justice, and courts are not limited to rectifying mere formal defects.

Summoning Author Of MLR Essential For Just Adjudication

The High Court repelled the petitioner's contention that permitting the medical officer's testimony after nineteen opportunities had been availed before the trial court amounted to an impermissible filling up of a lacuna. The bench noted that the MLR was already forming part of the court record and was a material piece of evidence whose formal proof was indispensable to adjudicating the charges.

Finding that the Additional Sessions Judge had acted prudently by rejecting the request to summon repetitive witnesses and confining the relief strictly to the examining doctor, the High Court held that the order did not suffer from any illegality or non-application of mind.

Affirming the order of the appellate court, the High Court held that Section 391 CrPC is designed to ensure complete justice and that procedural omissions by the prosecution in proving a vital Medico-Legal Report cannot bar an appellate court from summoning the doctor. Consequently, the petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.

Date of Decision: 15 October 2026