Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shantilal Sharma vs State Of M.P. on 5 October, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MP 2352
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
CRR.No.1610/2021
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
(S.B.: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
CRR.No.1610/2021
Applicants 1 SHANTILAL SHARMA (Age: 50) Thru:- BALARAM SHARMA
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE CHACHAKHEDI, TEHSIL
KANAD, , Agar , MADHYA PRADESH
2 JITENDRA SHARMA (Age: 28) Thru:- SHANTILAL SHARMA
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE CHACHAKHEDI, TEHSIL
KANAD, , Agar , MADHYA PRADESH
3 GOVIND SHARMA (Age: 26) Thru:- SHANTILAL SHARMA
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE CHACHAKHEDI, TEHSIL
KANAD, , Agar , MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
Respondents:- STATE OF M.P. STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH P.S.
KANAD , MADHYA PRADESH , MADHYA PRADESH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For applicants : Shri Priyvrat Singh Chouhan
For Respondent(s)State : Shri Aditya Garg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Date: 5.10.2021 :
The applicants have filed this present revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be read as "Cr.P.C") being aggrieved by the order dated 15.6.2021 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Agar District Shajapur; whereby, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 311 of Cr.P.C summons have been issued to call Dr.Parth Sharma and Dr. Vijay Agrawal in the witness box.
The applicants are facing trial under Sections 323, 294, 506/34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Crime No.251/2019. At the time of final argument, the Court below found out that the documents pertaining to the injuries i.e Xray Report and CT Scan are available in the charge-sheet but the two doctors, who gave the report have not been examined and their evidence is necessary for adjudication of the case.
Hence, before proceeding further, the prosecution has been directed to produce the two witnesses.
- : 2 :-
CRR.No.1610/2021Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the aforesaid order has been passed in order to fulfill the lacuna in the case of prosecution; hence, the learned Court below has wrongly exercised the powers without there being any application on the part of the prosecution.
Language of Section 311 of Cr.P.C is very clear which gives power to the Court to summon any material witness at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.
The Apex Court in the case of Mohanlal Shamaji Soni Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1991 (1) Crimes 818 SC has held that any person can be summoned as a witness at any stage.
Even this Court in the case of Hiralal Vs. State of M.P. reported in (1997) 2 Crimes 634 MP has held that the Court has power to summon any person as a witness at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding. Power is not confined to any particular case of prosecution.
In such a situation, the logic of fulfilling the lacuna is not applicable when specific power has been given to the Court. This power can be exercised by the Court suo moto or in an application filed by the accused or by the prosecution.
This Court finds that in the interest of justice and for adjudication of the case any person is liable to be examined as a witness, he can be summoned. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 15.6.2021 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Agar District Shajapur.
The revision is accordingly, dismissed.
( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE das Digitally signed by REENA PARTHO SARKAR Date: 2021.10.05 16:04:45 +05'30'