The court possesses an inherent and statutory duty to summon material witnesses or evidence at any trial stage if required for a just decision. A complainant's request to invoke this power does not invalidate the court's exercise of its judicial discretion, as the primary objective is ensuring a fair trial.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Prashant Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ganesh Dutt Bhatt, the learned AGA-I for the State.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. XIX, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 262/2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 721/2018, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Indira Nagar, District Lucknow, whereby an application filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act has been allowed.

3. The aforesaid application was filed by the complainant after closure of the prosecution evidence, recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and commencement of submissions, stating that Google Search History (Document no. P-6), WhatsApp chat (Document no. P-5) and Media statement of the accused (Document no. P-18) are available on record but the same have inadvertently been left out from being marked as exhibits and she requested that the documents may be marked as exhibits. The complainant further stated that PW-1 has made a mention of accused's sister and the accused has also stated in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that about 15 days before the incident, the complainant had taken the phone of the accused and there are WhatsApp chat between the accused and her sister Ruchi Mishra. Therefore, her examination would be necessary for proper adjudication of the case. A further prayer made in the application was for examination of a neighbor of the accused Aradhana Mishra, whose name finds place in the list of witnesses but who has not been examined. She had counseled the accused on many occasions, as the accused felt troubled by having a daughter and she desired to have a son. Her testimony is essential for explaining the mental condition of the accused at the time of the incident.

4. The accused-petitioner filed objections against the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. inter alia stating that the documents P-5, P-6 and P-18 have not been proved and, therefore, they are not admissible in evidence. She alleged that the WhatsApp chat was made by the complainant herself. In absence of the mobile phone having been examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, no electronic evidence would be admissible. She stated that the documents have been fabricated by the complainant herself.

5. The trial Court allowed the application by the impugned order dated 07.03.2026 holding that at the stage of deciding an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to adjudicate upon the reliability, genuineness or the probative value of the materials sought to be exhibited and these aspects are to be considered at the stage of appreciation of evidence. Formal exhibition of a document does not dispense with the requirement of its proof in accordance with law. The accused shall have full opportunity to challenge the admissibility and genuineness of the electronic record during cross examination and at the stage of appreciation of evidence. No prejudice would be caused to the accused by marking the documents already available on record as exhibits. The trial Court also noted that the complainant has filed a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act supported by an affidavit. Regarding summoning of additional witnesses, the trial Court stated that at the stage of deciding the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to determine in advance whether the entire testimony of the witnesses would be admissible or not. If the