Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Fathe Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MMO No. 319 of 2026
Decided On : 23-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Anirudh R.H. Sahrma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General

The court has wide discretion under Section 311 CrPC to permit production of documents even if not filed with charge-sheet, if essential for just decision; filling lacuna is subsidiary, and no prejudice if opportunity of rebuttal given.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 311 - Power to summon material witness or examine person present - Production of documents - Application for leading additional evidence - OPD slip - Essential for just decision - Court's discretion - Filling lacuna - Not prejudicial if essential - Power not limited to summoning witnesses but includes direction to produce documents - Documents not filed with charge-sheet can be permitted if omission is inadvertent - Section 311 read with Section 242(2) - Object to discover truth and ensure no failure of justice. (Paras 10-16)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 311 - Scope - Discretionary power must be exercised judiciously - Determinative factor is whether evidence is essential to just decision - Court may act suo motu or on application - Power can be exercised at any stage even after closure of evidence - Production of document allowed if essential, even if not listed in charge-sheet - Filling lacuna is subsidiary factor - No prejudice to accused if document is relevant and opportunity of rebuttal given. (Paras 10-16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner/accused challenged an order passed by the learned Trial Court allowing an application filed by the respondent/State under Section 311 CrPC for placing on record the informant's original OPD slip. The Medical Officer during examination-in-chief had stated that the history of a roadside accident was inadvertently mentioned in the MLC due to several cases of roadside accidents, whereas the OPD slip mentions history of physical assault. The slip was not annexed to the charge-sheet. The learned Trial Court allowed the application holding that the document was essential for the just decision of the case. The accused filed the present petition asserting that the order was erroneous and would prejudice him.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the learned Trial Court had rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 311 CrPC. The court has wide powers to summon any person as a witness or to produce documents at any stage of the trial. The determinative factor is whether the evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The production of the OPD slip was essential to explain the discrepancy between the MLC and the OPD slip and to ascertain the truth. The fact that the document was not filed with the charge-sheet is not an absolute bar; if there was an inadvertent omission, the court can permit its production. The submission that the accused would be prejudiced was rejected as the pursuit of truth cannot cause prejudice. The court relied on Supreme Court decisions in V.N. Patil, State v. N. Seenivasagan, Varsha Garg, Sameer Sandhir, and others. (Paras 10-16)

Issues: The main issues were whether the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application under Section 311 CrPC for production of a document not filed with the charge-sheet, and whether such production would cause prejudice to the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the power under Section 311 CrPC is wide and includes the power to direct production of documents. The essentiality for the just decision of the case is the paramount consideration. Filling a lacuna is only a subsidiary factor. The court must ensure that no serious or irreversible prejudice is caused to the accused, but mere inconvenience or late production does not constitute prejudice if the document is relevant and the accused is given an opportunity to rebut. (Paras 10-16)

Result: Petition dismissed. The order of the learned Trial Court allowing the application under Section 311 CrPC was upheld. Observations made are only for the disposal of the petition and will not affect the merits of the case. (Paras 17-18)

Legal Category Hierarchy

JUDMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition is directed against the order dated 12.12.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in case titled State of H.P. vs. Fateh Singh, vide which an application filed by the respondent/State for leading additional evidence was allowed. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The State filed an application for placing on record the informant’s original OPD slip. It was asserted that the Medical Officer Bhavika Sharma stated during her examination-in-chief that the history of a roadside accident was inadvertently mentioned in the informant’s MLC because of several cases of roadside accidents. The OPD slip mentions the history of physical assault by one person. The OPD slip was not annexed to the record. The OPD slip is material for the determination of the matter pending before the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the application be allowed and the OPD slip be taken on the record.

3. The application was opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the application were denied on the merits. It was asserted that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) does not enable the Court to place the documents on record, but to summon the witnesses. The Medical Officer had rightly mentioned the history of roadside accidents in the MLC. The application has been filed to fill up the lacuna. The document was not filed with the charge sheet. Hence, it was prayed that the application be dismissed.

4. The learned Trial Court held that the Court had the jurisdiction to summon any witness or direct him to produce any document or any other thing under Section 311 read with Section 242 (2) of Cr.P.C. The document was essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore, the learned Trial Court allowed the application.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application, the prosecution had mentioned the name of Dr Bhavika Sharma, at Sl. No. 6 to prove the documents mentioned in the list of documents. Learned Magistrate wrongly referred to section 242 of Cr.P.C. This provision was exhausted by summoning Dr Bhavika Sharma. The prosecution had not relied upon the OPD slip, and it was impermissible to allow the prosecution to place the OPD slip on record. The production of the document would prejudice the accused. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

6. I have heard Mr Anirudh R.H. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

7. Mr Anirudh R.H. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application. The prosecution had not mentioned the OPD slip in the list of documents, and it was impermissible to place the OPD slip on record. The application was filed to fill up the lacuna left by the statement of Dr Bhavika Sharma that the injuries were caused by a roadside accident. The accused would be seriously prejudiced by placing the OPD slip on record. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

8. Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to examine any witness at any stage. Learned trial Court had exercised t