IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8160-2026 BHARAT KUMAR ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ..... Respondent

1. Judgment reserved on 10.02.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 07.05.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 08.05.2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is FULL pronounced.

5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement is full NA judgment and reason thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Aman Pal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Choudhary, Advocate and Mr. Pratham Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Praveen Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.

1. The present revision petition has been instituted against the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C has been allowed.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per FIR No. 678 dated 09.08.2020, registered under Section 302 IPC at Police Station City Panipat, are that on 09.08.2020 at around 8:00 PM, complainant Rani @ Priya was standing at Fatehpuri Chowk along with her sister-in-law Kavita and their children, namely Dhruvi and Gaurav. While they were purchasing household articles, accused Bharat Kumar who is husband of Rani @ Priya came from behind and questioned Kavita as to why she has kept his wife with her. Thereafter, accused pulled out a knife and repeatedly stabbed Kavita, causing her to fall on the ground. The victim was subsequently taken to the Government Hospital, Panipat, where she was declared dead. The matter was investigated. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented in Court for trial.

3. During the pendency of the trial, an application was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon PW Krishna, the minor son of the deceased, and to examine him, which has been allowed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 15.03.2022.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been instituted. Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and the material placed on file has been perused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was moved to examine a child witness, namely Krishna, who has neither been named in the FIR nor in the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that none of the witnesses previously examined mentioned the presence of the said child at the spot. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution is merely attempting to fill up a lacuna in the case after complainant, Rani @ Priya, did not support the prosecution version during her examination as PW-1. Learned counsel further contended that the Trial Court has not appreciated the facts of the case in the correct perspective while allowing the application, which will seriously prejudice the accused.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the prayer and argued that the testimony of said Krishna is essential for the just decision of the case. During the trial, PW-7 Sunil Kumar deposed that he had received information regarding the incident from the said witness, Krishna, who was present at the spot with the deceased. Therefore, the examination of the said witness is necessary to elicit the truth of the occurrence and learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the application.

7. Before proceeding further, Section 311 Cr.P.C is reproduced as under:—

“311. Power to Summon material witness, or examine person present.— Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the j