The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and set aside the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Salumber, rejecting the petitioners’ application under Section 311 CrPC (now Section 348 BNSS) for summoning Dr. Sanjay Shah as a material witness. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the evidence of the doctor who prepared the medical report and gave opinion regarding the nature of injuries is essential for proper appreciation of the medical evidence and for arriving at a just decision of the case. The Court held that 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 petitioners are accused in a case arising out of FIR No.243/2020 registered at Udit Nagar Police Station alleging offences under Sections 279, 323, 308, 325, 365, 387 and 34 IPC. It was alleged that on 09.09.2020 a collision took place between the vehicle of the complainant and another vehicle, whereafter an altercation ensued and the complainant along with one Vinod Kumar Jain sustained injuries. During investigation, injury reports were prepared and medical opinion was obtained. The first Investigating Officer Kishor Singh (PW-16) in his cross-examination admitted that the medical report (Ex.D-1) was prepared on the basis of requisition sent by him and that the opinion regarding injuries as per (Ex.P/15) and (Ex.D-2) can only be given by the doctor. The petitioners moved an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking summoning of Dr. Sanjay Shah who had medically examined the injured Vinod Kumar Jain. It was contended 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 and that there was no injury on the vital part of the deceased. The application was rejected by the trial court mainly on the ground that it is the prerogative of the prosecution to decide which witnesses are to be examined.
The High Court, after considering the submissions and the material on record, referred to the wide powers conferred upon the Court under Section 311 CrPC and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013) 14 SCC 461, Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) and K.P. Tamilmaran v. State (2025). The Court observed that the second part of Section 311 CrPC in fact mandates the summoning of a witness by the Court if the Court is of the opinion that such evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. Justice Sandhu held, “Therefore, 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., which empowers the Court itself to summon any witness if his evidence appears necessary for the just adjudication of the case.” The Court further noted that the cause and nature of the injuries constitute a crucial aspect of the trial and the examination of the doctor who prepared the medical report is undoubtedly essential to assist the Court in appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective and in arriving at a just decision of the case.
The High Court accordingly allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 15.01.2026 and directed the learned trial court to 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.
Case Title: Narayan Lal Rebari & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1501/2026
Date of Judgment: 01.04.2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 