Prosecution Plays Witness Keeper? Rajasthan HC Says No, Orders Doctor's Summoning in Injury Dispute

In a decisive ruling that reinforces the broad powers of trial courts to ensure justice, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has quashed a lower court's refusal to summon a crucial doctor as a witness. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu, in Narayan Lal Rebari & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 151], held that Section 311 of the CrPC (now Section 348 BNSS) mandates summoning material witnesses whose evidence is essential—even if the prosecution chose not to list them. This comes amid a heated trial over a road collision turned violent altercation.

Road Rage FIR: Collision, Assault Claims, and a Mysterious Death

The saga began on September 9, 2020, in Udaipur district, when complainant Bhagwati Lal Suthar alleged his vehicle collided with one driven by petitioner Narayan Lal Rebari (RJ-27-CE-2447). What followed, per the FIR No. 243/2020, was an altercation leading to injuries on Suthar and witness Vinod Kumar Jain, with charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving), 336 (endangering life), 384 (extortion), 307 (attempt to murder), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt).

Investigation escalated: charge sheet invoked graver Sections 308 (culpable homicide), 325 (grievous hurt), 365 (kidnapping), 387 (extortion with hurt threat), and 34 (common intention). Notably, Vinod Kumar Jain died, but petitioners claim his death stemmed from a stroke, not assault—no vital injuries per medical reports.

Trial in Sessions Case No. 24/2025 (CIS 10/2022) advanced: 21 prosecution witnesses listed, PW1-PW18 examined, only IO Hanwant Singh Sodha pending. Cross-examination of first IO Kishor Singh (PW-16) revealed key medical reports (Ex. D-1, D-2, P-15, P-23) prepared by Dr. Sanjay Shah—yet the doctor was uncited and unexamined.

Petitioners applied December 8, 2025, under Section 311 CrPC to summon Dr. Shah. Trial court (District & Sessions Judge, Salumber) rejected it January 15, 2026, deeming witness selection "prosecution's prerogative." High Court petition followed, decided April 1, 2026.

Accused Demand Doctor's Testimony; State Defends Prosecution Turf

Petitioners, via counsel Hardik Vyas, argued Dr. Shah's evidence was vital: IO admitted only the doctor could opine on injuries linking to death. Reports allegedly showed stroke as cause, rebutting Section 308 IPC. Denial prejudiced defense, violating Section 311's "wide amplitude" for "just decision." Cited Supreme Court trio: Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013 14 SCC 461) on guidelines against "lacuna-filling" but favoring truth; Varsha Garg v. State of MP (2022 SCC OnLine SC 986) affirming post-closure summons; K.P. Tamilmaran v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 958) stressing unfettered power even late-stage.

Public Prosecutor Ramesh Dewasi backed the trial order, upholding prosecution's witness choice.

Unpacking Section 311: From Discretion to Duty for Truth-Seeking

Justice Sandhu dissected Section 311 CrPC: first part discretionary ("may summon"), second obligatory ("shall summon" if essential for just decision). Trial court's "prosecution prerogative" logic? Dismissed as overlooking the provision's object—discovery of truth over party silos.

Precedents illuminated: Rajaram Prasad Yadav listed 14 principles prioritizing justice sans prejudice; Varsha Garg clarified "essentiality" trumps evidence closure; Tamilmaran empowered courts suo motu, akin to Evidence Act Section 165. Facts sealed it: IO relied on Dr. Shah's reports (received via Ex. P-23/P-25) but deferred opinion; petitioners disputed injury-death nexus. Doctor's absence? "Surprising," said the court, as cause/nature of injuries was "crucial."

No prejudice to prosecution—mere non-citation no bar when evidence aids adjudication.

Key Observations Straight from the Bench

"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 just decision of the case." (Quoting Section 311 CrPC)

"Merely because the prosecution did not cite the said doctor as a witness cannot be a ground to deny the petitioners the opportunity to summon such a material expert witness, when his evidence appears to be relevant and necessary for the just decision of the case."

"The accused-petitioners have clearly disputed the alleged injuries on the person of the deceased and contend that the reports do not establish that the stated injuries were the cause of death. Further, the Investigating Officer... has categorically stated that an opinion on these reports can only be given by the doctor concerned."

"The reasoning assigned by the learned trial court that it is solely the prerogative of the prosecution to decide which witnesses are to be examined, overlooks the true scope and object of Section 311 Cr.P.C."

Justice Served: Summon the Doctor, Proceed Fairly

Petition allowed; trial order quashed. Directing: "The learned trial court shall summon Dr. Sanjay Shah as a witness and permit the parties to examine and cross-examine him in accordance with law, and thereafter proceed with the trial expeditiously."

Implications ripple: Reinforces accused's right to material evidence, checks prosecution oversights, ensures trials aren't hobbled by missing expert voices. Future courts must weigh "essentiality" boldly, advancing fair play in India's criminal justice arena—victim, accused, society all benefit.