Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pulkit Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9514
1 MCRC-12420-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12420 of 2026
PULKIT SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Arun Kumar Paterya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking following reliefs:
"अतएव िनवेदन है क ाथ क ओर से तुत इस यािचका
को वीकार कर यायालय व ान एकादशम अित र स
यायाधीश वािलयर ( जला- वािलयर) म य दे श ारा स
करण मांक-293/2024 म पा रत ववा दत आदे श दनांक-
25/02/2026 को अपा त कये जाने क आ ा पा रत करने क कृ पा
कर।"
The present matter arises from F.I.R. No.10 of 2024 registered at Police Station Padav, Gwalior, regarding an incident in which the accused, Pulkit Sharma (present petitioner), allegedly fired at the injured. The evidence in the case is CCTV footage obtained from a courier shop, which Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 3/18/2026 11:28:01 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9514 2 MCRC-12420-2026 captured the incident. The prosecution has exhibited this footage on record in the form of a pen drive and photographs. During the course of investigation, the DVR containing the CCTV footage, bearing No. 2305012438013858, was seized in connection with FIR No. 571/23, which is currently part of Sessions Case No. 674 of 2023. Although the DVR was not directly attached to the chargesheet in the present case, the relevant CCTV footage from it has already been exhibited and used as evidence in these proceedings. The prosecution has filed an application under Section 348 of BNSS seeking to re-summon witness No.5, Mr. Maniram, to formally exhibit and record the DVR seized in FIR No.571 of 2023 as primary evidence. The prosecution has clarified that no new facts are being introduced, and the request is solely for authentication and formal presentation of existing primary evidence. The petitioner/accused has opposed the application, contending that evidence from another case is neither relevant nor admissible in the present proceedings. Upon due consideration, the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.02.2026 allowed the said application observing that the DVR footage is directly relevant to the incident under FIR No. 10/24, and allowing its formal exhibition through the witness is necessary for the fair and just disposal of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the impugned order passed by learned XII Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Case No. 293/2024 on 25/02/2026 is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside, as the prosecution's application seeking to summon and exhibit a DVR seized in a separate criminal case is wholly misconceived and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 3/18/2026 11:28:01 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9514 3 MCRC-12420-2026 legally unsustainable. Evidence from an independent criminal proceeding, which is not part of the present chargesheet, cannot be treated as relevant or admissible.
It is further submitted that the incident giving rise to FIR No. 10/24 occurred on 29/09/2023, whereas the First Information Report was registered nearly four months later and during the investigation, no DVR was seized in connection with the present case, and therefore, the DVR in question cannot form part of the trial proceedings herein. The primary evidence relevant to the case, namely, the CCTV footage, has already been duly exhibited in the form of a pen drive and photographs.
It is further submitted that the statement of the witness, Maniram Singh (PW-5), was recorded in the Court on 26/10/2024 and completed on 05/02/2025, after which the witness was discharged. Upon the prosecution's request, the witness was re-summoned on 28/03/2025 and his statement recorded again. Despite having been afforded full opportunities on both occasions, the prosecution did not re-examine the witness, further demonstrating that the attempt to reintroduce the DVR is unnecessary and redundant.
It is further submitted that when the trial was nearing conclusion, the prosecution filed an application, upon which the learned trial court passed the impugned order, seeking to allow the prosecution to rectify its deficiencies. Such an order is legally impermissible. The trial court failed to consider that the DVR was never seized during the investigation and allowing its formal exhibition at this stage is contrary to the settled principles Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 3/18/2026 11:28:01 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9514 4 MCRC-12420-2026 of law regarding relevance and admissibility of evidence.
It is also submitted that the application was filed with undue delay, apparently to cover up the shortcomings in the prosecution's case and the learned trial court did not take note that all the prosecution witnesses examined during trial did not fully support the prosecution's version of events. The order therefore results in prejudice to the petitioner/accused and is arbitrary in nature.
In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned order herein be set aside.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the petition and prayed for its dismissal, supporting the impugned order After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the contention of the petitioner/accused that the DVR sought to be exhibited is inadmissible merely because it was seized in connection with another criminal case is unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly when the record clearly establishes that the said DVR contains CCTV footage directly related to the incident in question and constitutes relevant and primary evidence.
It is further evident that the prosecution has not sought to introduce any new or extraneous material, but has only prayed for formal exhibition and authentication of evidence already forming part of the record. The learned trial court, in exercising its powers under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, has acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction, and such exercise cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal. On Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 3/18/2026 11:28:01 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9514 5 MCRC-12420-2026 the contrary, the same has been undertaken to ensure that all relevant evidence is properly proved, thereby advancing the cause of justice.
The objections raised by the petitioner/accused regarding delay and alleged lacunae in the prosecution case do not persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order, particularly in the absence of any demonstrable prejudice. It is well settled that procedural technicalities cannot be permitted to override substantive justice, especially when the evidence sought to be adduced is germane to the controversy and essential for a just adjudication.
The power of the Court to summon, recall, or re-examine any witness under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is wide and is to be exercised to secure the ends of justice. The Apex Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271, has categorically held that such power can be exercised at any stage if the evidence of a witness appears to be essential for a just decision of the case. Similarly, in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 461, the Apex Court laid down that the determinative factor is whether the evidence sought to be adduced is necessary for a just decision, and the power must be exercised judiciously to advance the cause of justice.
In Natasha Singh v. CBI, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741, the Apex Court in para 8 has held as under:
"8. Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to examine a person present at "any stage" of "any enquiry", or "trial", or "any other Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 3/18/2026 11:28:01 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9514
6 MCRC-12420-2026 proceedings" under the Cr.P.C., or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, the Cr.P.C. has conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the court in this respect, but such a discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power of the court in this context is very wide, and in exercise of the same, it may summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such power even suo motu if no such application has been filed by either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a witness, or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case.
Furthermore, in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 158, the Apex Court emphasized that a fair trial includes the duty of the Court to ensure that all relevant evidence is brought on record so that the truth is discovered. Thus, the settled legal position is that the Court is empowered to recall witnesses and permit additional evidence where it is essential for a just and fair adjudication of the case.
In light of the settled legal position as enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court finds that the power to recall witnesses and permit additional evidence is wide and is to be exercised to secure the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 3/18/2026 11:28:01 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9514 7 MCRC-12420-2026 ends of justice.
Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 25/02/2026 passed by learned XII Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, warranting interference under Section 528 of BNSS.
The present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 3/18/2026 11:28:01 AM