IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 24 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 58974 of 2025 CHOTU ALIAS DHARMVEER AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Keshav Pathak - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking recall of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination was rejected, and also for setting aside the revisional order affirming the same.

The facts, in brief, are that during the course of trial the statements of the complainant Diwan Singh and witness Narendra were recorded. On the date fixed for their cross-examination, the counsel for the accused was engaged in another matter and could not conduct cross-examination. An application for exemption from personal appearance under Section 317 CrPC was allowed; however, on the same day the learned Trial Court closed the right of the accused to cross-examine the said witnesses. Subsequently, the accused filed an application under Section 311 CrPC stating that the witnesses are eye-witnesses and the complainant, and their cross-examination is essential for just adjudication of the case. The said application was rejected and the prosecution evidence was declared closed. The revisional court affirmed the said order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that denial of opportunity to cross-examine material witnesses has caused grave prejudice to the defence and amounts to denial of fair trial. It is contended that only one effective opportunity was lost due to bona fide reasons and there was no deliberate intention to delay the proceedings.

Learned State counsel has opposed the petition and supported the impugned orders.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The right of cross-examination is a valuable and substantive right of the accused and is an essential component of a fair trial. The power under Section 311 CrPC is meant to ensure that the Court arrives at a just decision and is to be exercised to advance the cause of justice. Closing the right of cross-examination, particularly of material witnesses such as the complainant and eye-witnesses, has serious consequences and should be resorted to only where the conduct of the party is contumacious or deliberately dilatory.

In the present case, the record does not reflect any finding that the conduct of the accused was wilful or intended to protract the trial. The application under Section 317 CrPC was allowed on the date in question, which indicates that the absence was not treated as deliberate. In such circumstances, outright rejection of the application under Section 311 CrPC and closure of prosecution evidence has resulted in denial of an effective opportunity of defence.

The object of criminal trial is to discover the truth and to ensure that justice is done. Denial of opportunity to cross-examine material witnesses may result in serious miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one last and final opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the concerned prosecution witnesses.

Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC and the order passed by the learned Revisional Court affirming the same are hereby set aside.

The petitioners are granted one last and final opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses Diwan Singh and Narendra. The learned Trial Court shall fix a specific date for cross-examination. No further adjournment shall be granted on any ground whatsoever. In the event the petitioners fail to cross-examine the witnesses o