Point of Law : Section 311 CrPC is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing].

1. The petitioners are facing trial in Sessions Case No. 46/2020, arising out of FIR No. 01/2018, dated 03.01.2018, registered in Police Station, Defence Colony, under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”], they have assailed an order dated 28.01.2022, by which the Trial Court has allowed an application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the CrPC for summoning of an additional witness.

2. The FIR was registered at the instance of one Gurmeet Singh [hereinafter “the complainant”] in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 11.12.2017. The complainant claims to have left his home at around 11:35 PM by car to withdraw money. He found that a car driven by the petitioner No. 1 was following him. The estranged wife of the complainant, who is the petitioner No. 3, was also in the car. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 pulled him out of the car, threw him on the road and beat him. The petitioner No. 3 is also accused of instigating others to beat the complainant. The complainant drew out his gun to defend himself, but the petitioner No. 2 tried to snatch the gun, in the course of which a shot was fired, and it hit the rear side of the car. The complainant claims to have been subjected to blows by fists and with a baseball danda [hereinafter “baseball bat”]. It is alleged that another shot was also fired, and that the petitioner No. 2 snatched the complainant’s phone, gold chain and approximately Rs.1500/- cash. An FIR under Section 304 of the IPC [FIR No. 234/2017, dated 12.12.2017, registered in Police Station Defence Colony, under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959] was registered against the complainant at the instance of the petitioner No. 1. The complainant was detained by the police but alleged that he and his family members have been threatened by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3.

3. In the course of the investigation, the complainant was examined and a Medico-Legal Case [“MLC”] was drawn up by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Trauma Centre, wherein Dr. Kaberi Debbarma, Junior Resident, opined that the injuries were grievous and caused with a blunt weapon.

4. Charges have been framed against the petitioners under Section 326/34/506/356 of the IPC.

5. During the course of the trial, Dr. Debbarma was examined as PW-7. She testified to having prepared an MLC of the complainant on 12.12.2017 (Exhibit PW-3/A), and identified her signatures thereupon. She also testified that she had prepared a discharge summary (Exhibit PW-4/A). During the course of her cross examination, she stated that the discharge summary at PW-4/E does not bear her signatures, but is signed by one Dr. Vinay Kumar Sahu, Orthopedician, while the discharge summary, in general, was signed by her. The relevant portion of her testimony in cross examination is extracted below:-

“It is correct that the Discharge Summary Ex. PW-4/E does not bear my signatures, but is signed by Orthopedician. The opinion in Orthopedic OPD was given by Dr. Vinay Kumar Sahu while the Discharge Summary in general was signed by me. It is correct that the Discharge Summary Ex. PW-4/E does not bear the original signature of Dr. Vinay Kumar Sahu. The Discharge Summary Ex. PW-4/E was not prepared by me.”

6. It is in these circumstances that the prosecution filed an application dated 07.12.2021 before the Trial Court under Section 311 of the CrPC, seeking that Dr. Sahu be summoned as a witness. The ground stated in the application was that, during the examination of Dr. Debbarma, it has been found that opinion on the MLC was also given by Dr. Sahu.

7. Vide the order dated 28.01.2022, the Trial Court allowed the aforesaid application, noticing that the object of Section 311 of the CrPC is to bring on record best available records to