Section 311 CrPC | Court Not A Passive Bystander, Must Summon Material Witness If Essential For Just Decision: Rajasthan High Court

“Statutory provision goes to emphasize that the court is not a hapless bystander in the derailment of justice. Quite to the contrary, the court has a vital role to discharge in ensuring that the cause of discovering truth as an aid in the realisation of justice is manifest,” Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the power under Section 311 CrPC (now Section 348 BNSS) is of wide amplitude and mandates the summoning of a witness if their evidence is essential for a just decision.

A bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that a trial court cannot refuse to summon a material expert witness simply on the ground that the prosecution did not cite them. The Court emphasized that the judiciary must not be a "hapless bystander" when the discovery of truth is at stake.

The petitioners were accused in a sessions trial involving offences under Sections 279, 323, 308, 325, 365, 387, and 34 of the IPC, arising from a 2020 road accident and subsequent assault. During the trial, it emerged that Dr. Sanjay Shah had prepared the medical reports of the injured, but the prosecution failed to cite or examine him as a witness. When the accused moved an application to summon the doctor, the District & Sessions Judge, Salumber rejected it, stating that it was the prosecution's prerogative to decide which witnesses to examine.

The primary question before the court was whether the power under Section 311 CrPC is mandatory when the evidence of a witness appears essential to the just decision of a case. The court also considered whether the prosecution’s failure to cite a witness deprives the accused or the court of the right to seek their examination if their testimony is germane to the facts.

Wide Amplitude of Section 311 CrPC

The High Court began by examining the statutory language of Section 311 CrPC, noting that it is couched in the widest possible terms. The Court observed that the provision is intended to ensure that the "judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts." It noted that the power can be exercised at any stage of the inquiry or trial, even after the closure of evidence.

Two Parts of the Provision: Discretionary vs Mandatory

The Court highlighted the distinction between the two parts of Section 311 CrPC. While the first part is discretionary, using the word "may" for summoning witnesses, the second part is obligatory. The bench noted that the Court "shall" summon and examine a person if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.

Court Not A Passive Bystander In Seeking Truth

Justice Sandhu reiterated that the criminal court possesses ample power to summon or recall witnesses to aid in the discovery of truth. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court noted that the statutory provision must be read purposively. The Court has a "vital role to discharge" in ensuring that the realization of justice is manifest through the best available evidence.

Examination of Treating Doctor Crucial for Medical Evidence

In the specific context of the case, the High Court found that the Investigating Officer (PW-16) had admitted in cross-examination that only a doctor could provide a definitive opinion on the nature of the injuries recorded in the medical reports. The petitioners had disputed the cause of death and the nature of the injuries, making Dr. Sanjay Shah’s testimony vital for proper appreciation of the medical evidence.

“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.”

Rejection of 'Prosecution Prerogative' Argument

The Court took strong exception to the trial court's reasoning that the prosecution has the sole prerogative to decide which witnesses to examine. It held that such a view overlooks the true scope and object of Section 311 CrPC. The power under this section is not constrained by the prosecution’s witness list and can even be exercised suo motu by the Court under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.

“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.”

Duty of Court to Render Just Decision

Referring to the principles laid down in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, the bench noted that the object of the law is to find the truth. The Court should be "magnanimous in permitting mistakes to be rectified" if relevant material was not brought on record due to inadvertence. It concluded that a fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim, and society alike.

The High Court quashed the order of the District & Sessions Judge, Salumber, and allowed the application under Section 311 CrPC. The trial court was directed to summon Dr. Sanjay Shah as a witness, permit his examination and cross-examination, and thereafter proceed with the trial expeditiously to ensure the case is decided on its merits.

The ruling reinforces the principle that the court’s primary duty is the pursuit of truth and justice, rather than acting as a mere referee between the parties. By allowing the examination of the medical expert, the Court ensured that the final judgment would be based on conclusive medical evidence rather than speculation.

Date of Decision: 01 April 2026