The power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude and is meant to facilitate the discovery of truth. The Court is duty-bound to summon or recall a witness if their testimony is essential for a just decision, regardless of which party proposed or omitted the witness.

Judgment

1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Salumber in Session Case No. 24/2025 (CIS No. 10/2022) titled as State of Rajasthan vs. Narayanlal & Ors., whereby the application preferred by the petitioners, who are accused in the trial, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 348 of BNSS) for summoning and examining the material witness Dr. Sanjay Shah has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant Bhagwati Lal Suthar lodged an FIR No.243/2020 dated 10.09.2020 alleging commission of offence under Sections 279, 336, 384, 307 and 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged that on 09.09.2020 a collision took place between the vehicle of the complainant with another vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-27-CE-2447, whereafter an altercation ensued and the complainant along with one Vinod Kumar Jain sustained injuries.

3. During investigation, injury reports of the injured persons were prepared and medical opinion regarding the nature of injuries was obtained and after completion of investigation, the police has submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 279, 323, 308, 325, 365, 387 and 34 IPC.

4. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses in support of its case and the trial has progressed substantially. Out of the said witnesses, PW-1 to PW-18 have already been examined and only the last prosecution witness, namely the Investigating Officer, Hanwant Singh Sodha, remains to be examined.

5. During the course of trial, the first Investigating Officer Kishor Singh (PW-16) admitted in his cross-examination that the Medical Report (Ex.D-1) was prepared on the basis of request letter (Ex.P-23) sent by him to the concerned doctor. He further submits that the opinion regarding injuries as per (Ex.15) and (Ex.D-2) can only be given by the doctor.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid medical report and opinion were prepared by Dr. Sanjay Shah, who had medically examined the injured, Vinod Kumar Jain. However, the said doctor was neither cited as a prosecution witness nor examined during trial.

7. Consequently, the petitioners moved an application dated 08.12.2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of Dr. Sanjay Shah as a witness. It was alleged that in the report of the Doctor, it has been stated that the death of the deceased was caused by a stroke and not by way of any assault. There was no injury on the vital part of the deceased and hence no offence under Section 308 IPC was made out. It was submitted that the Investigating Officer in his statement has stated that opinion regarding the injury on the basis of medical reports can only be given by the doctor.

8. It is contended on behalf of counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of the said doctor is essential for proper appreciation of the medical evidence and for arriving at a just decision of the case. It is further submitted that denial of opportunity to summon such a