Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SMT. SUMAN – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRLR/2608/2022
CRIMINAL REVISION - SUMMONING OF WITNESS - SECTION 311 CR.P.C. - ESSENTIALITY OF WITNESS'S EVIDENCE FOR JUST DECISION - DUTY OF COURT TO SUMMON MATERIAL WITNESSES
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed a criminal revision to set aside the order of the trial court rejecting her application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon a doctor as a witness. The doctor had examined the injured person and prepared the injury report, but his statement was not recorded by the investigating officer and he was not arrayed as a witness in the charge sheet.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the evidence of the doctor was essential for the just decision of the case and that the trial court erred in rejecting the application to summon him. The court noted that the doctor had prepared the injury report and that his evidence would be necessary to prove the medical report.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application to summon the doctor as a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles:- Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon any person as a witness if their evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.- The court has a duty to summon material witnesses, even if they have not been examined by the investigating officer or arrayed as witnesses in the charge sheet.- The evidence of the doctor was essential for the just decision of the case because he had prepared the injury report and his evidence would be necessary to prove the medical report.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision and quashed the impugned order. The court directed the trial court to summon the doctor to prove the medical reports.
A.F.R.
Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2608 of 2022 Revisionist :- Smt. Suman Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devesh Kumar Sharma Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
This criminal revision has been instituted by the revisionist to set aside the order dated 31st May, 2022 passed by A.S.J-VI, Mathura in S.T. No. 433 of 2012 (Smt. Suman Vs. Krishna Murari & Ors.) under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Vrindaban, District Mathura, by which the Trial Court has rejected the application 136-B by the informant under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
In brief facts of the case are that the aforementioned Sessions Trial is pending in the Court of A.S.J-VI, Mathura, in which the informant moved an application 136-B that injured Rajan Lal was examined on 03rd July, 2009 in Swarna Jayanti Community Hospital. Medical report 4-A/17 is on record, he was examined by Dr. Ajai Gopal, during the medical examination Mild Subarachnoid Hemorrhage was found on the head and he was carried out in unconscious position/stage to the hospital therefore the statement of concerned doctor is necessary. Hence, Dr. Ajai Gopal be summoned as witness. The concerned I.O. has not arrayed him as witness, therefore Dr. Ajai Gopal be summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the accused had vehemently opposed the application and had stated that this file is under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 01.01.2014 and is being delayed intentionally. The injury of Rajan Lal is simple in nature and the statement of Dr. Ajai Gopal has not been been recorded by the concerned I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
By the impugned order, the learned trial court has rejected the application on the ground that the injuries alleged to be caused to the injured are said to be simple in nature. The learned A.D.G.C has objected the summoning of the said witness in such a situation when the statement of the victim has been made and the trial relates to Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C, therefore calling or not calling of the aforesaid doctor would have not special effect on the prosecution. It is also clarified that this sessions trial is connected with another cross case, which is under the action plan laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, which has to be decided expeditiously, therefore, the application is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
It has also been concluded by the trial court that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C has been opposed by the learned ADGC (Criminal) what evidence the prosecution wants to present in the court, it is the responsibility of the prosecution. It is not necessary that if the investigator has not taken the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, a person cannot be summoned but in this case, the prosecution itself is opposing it. The advocate appointed by the informant can assist the prosecution, but they can not act as prosecution officer. The learned trial court has referred the judgment Rekha Murakka Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. J.T 2019 (11) S.C 291, in which it has been held that the learned counsel for the victim//informant plays only a secondary role in advancing the prosecution case.
Being aggrieved the revisionist has filed the present revision.
In the application, the applicant has taken ground that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind by wrongly interpreting the judgement of Rekha Murakka (supra) and thus rejected the legal and genuine claim of the revisionist.
Dr. Ajai Gopal is the sole witness, who has medically examined the injured Rajan Lal on 03rd July, 2009 in Swarna Jayanti Community Hospital and has given opinion in which he has contended that the injury cannot be seen due to plaster and referred the injured to District Hospital, Mathura for x-ray about the opinion regarding injury no. 1. In this incident, Rajan and Sunder Lal, two persons had sustained grievous injury and both were examined by Dr. Ajai Gopal, there
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
