IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49939 of 2025 VIPIN BARAIYA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Manas Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].

Shri Dinesh Savita Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].

Reserved on : 14.11.2025 Pronounced on : 10/12/2025 This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, Hon’ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, Judge pronounced the following:

ORDER This petition under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioners with the following reliefs :

It is therefore most humbly prayed that the revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant may kindly be allowed and be pleased to set aside the order dated 04.09.25 passed by the court below, and directed to recall the witnesses Man Singh Kannojia, (complainant), Jayraj Kannojia, Bharat Kannojia (eye witness) & Dr. Pramod Chhawania, Dr. Gajraj Singh Gurjar, Dr. U.S. Tiwari, Dr. S Siddham, Dr. K. C. Parihar, Dr. Manav Sethia, & permission for proper cross-examination may be given in the interest of justice.

2. As per the prosecution story, the incident took place on 07.07.2014.

The complainant alleges that co-accused Manoj Jatav had earlier lodged a false report against the complainant’s son. On the date of the incident, when the complainant questioned Manoj about filing the false report, Manoj Jatav along with Rinku Jatav, Vipin Jatav and Champat Jatav started abusing him in filthy language. When the complainant objected, all the accused persons allegedly assaulted him, causing injuries on his left eyebrow, head, lips, face, and left eye. When the complainant’s sons Sonu and Bharat came to save him, they were also beaten by the accused persons. Based on these allegations, the police registered an FIR for offences under Sections 294, 323, 506-B, and 34 of the IPC. During investigation, the police recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., arrested the accused, and later filed a charge-sheet.

3. The complainant then filed applications seeking to bring additional documents on record and also filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of charges under Sections 326 and 307 IPC, and for summoning certain doctors. The learned trial Court dismissed this application. The complainant challenged the order before this Courrt in M.Cr.C. No. 16476/2024, and vide order dated 24.04.2025, this Court allowed the application in part. This Court directed the learned trial Court to alter the charge to Section 326 IPC. It also held that no doctor was required to be recalled unless the learned trial Court found it necessary to do so for determining whether any deadly weapon was used. The accused challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.

11127/2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 04.08.2025, permitted the accused to file an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the doctor(s). Thereafter, the accused filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of several witnesses, including: Complainant Man Singh, Eye-witnesses Jayraj and Bharat, Dr. Pramod Chhawania, Dr. Gajraj Singh Gurjar, Dr. U.S. Tiwari, Dr. S. Siddham, Dr. K.C. Parihar, and Dr. Manav Sethia. The learned trial Court partly allowed the application and recalled only Dr. Girraj Singh (PW-5) and Dr. U.S. Tiwari (PW-8) and also allowed prosecution’s request to summon Dr. Shishir Agarwal. However, the learned trial Court restricted the cross- examination of the recalled doctors only to the issue of whether a “lethal weapon” was used to cause the injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the name of Dr. Parihar was included in the charge-sheet, the prosecution deliberately chose not to examine him as a prosecution witness. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court again summoned him as a witness. Dr.