The court upheld the rejection of applications under S.311 of Cr.P.C. as the petitioner failed to demonstrate necessary grounds for witness summons.

1. This present petition under S.482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the Court of 3 Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mandsaur in S. T. No.157/2018, whereby applications dated 30.07.2021 and 09.08.2021, both filed under S.311 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant for summoning Jail Superintendent, Mandsaur Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma and Dr. Rahul Mathur along with the record related to the treatment of the applicant have been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.09.2018, at about 7.30 AM, when minor prosecutrix, aged about 14 years was sleeping alone in her room, applicant, who was her neighbour came there and caught hold her hand and thereafter tried to tie friendship band on her hand and when she started screaming, he fled from the spot. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother and thereafter made a written complaint (Exhibit - P / 1) on the basis of which FIR (Exhibit - P / 2) was registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under S.452, S.354, S.354 - A and 506 of IPC along with 7/8 and 11(iv) / 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The police, after investigation, filed charge - sheet against the applicant and during trial when he was in custody, he fell ill and was referred from District Jail, Mandsaur to District Hospital, Mandsaur and thereafter to M. Y. Hospital, Indore where he was found suffering from Cannabis Induced Psychosis. After closing of the prosecutrix evidence, applicant moved applications dated 30.07.2021 and 09.08.2021, both under S.311 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the Jail Superintendent, Mandsaur Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma and Assistant Professor, M. Y Hospital, Indore Dr. Rahul Mathur along with the record related to the treatment of the applicant in his defense, which were rejected by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.08.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during cross - examination of the prosecutrix, it has specifically been suggested to her on behalf of the applicant that applicant is suffering from mental disease and during custody period, he was also found suffering from Psychosis illness and treated accordingly therefore, statements of Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, as well as Dr. Rahul Mathur who treated him along with the record relating to applicant's treatment, is necessary for just and proper decision of the case. Learned Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting both the applications for summoning the aforesaid witnesses along with the concerned record hence, the impugned order is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside and the applicant be permitted to summon Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma and Dr. Rahul Mathur. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and another, decided on 07.04.2013 in SLP (Cri.) No.2400/2011.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the non - applicants / State has opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant in his applications filed under S.311 of Cr.P.C. has not specifically mentioned for what purpose he wants to summon Jail Superintendent Sunil Kumar Sharma and Assistant Professor, M. Y. Hospital, Indore Dr. Rahul Mathur and the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is just and proper therefore, applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed and his petition be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that after about 18 days of the incident, during the period of custody when applicant was referred t