Peter @ Antony Peter vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep

Court
Madras High Court

Crl.A(MD) No.1279 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
Crl.A(MD) No.1279 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011476632026}
Peter @ Antony Peter
..Appellants
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
South Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
(Crime No.533 of 2019)
2. The Inspector of Police
South Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
3. P.Ramkumar
..Respondents
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of
SC/ST (PoA) Act, to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated
09.09.2026 passed by the learned Special Court for Trial of Cases under
SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi in Crl.M.P.No.259 of 2026 in S.C.No.62
of 2020 and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Raghul Priyan
For R1 and R2 : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No.1279 of 2026
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the order, dated
09.09.2026 passed by the learned Special Court for Trial of Cases under
SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi in Crl.M.P.No.259 of 2026 in S.C.No.62
of 2020.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The appellant challenges the order of the Trial Court passed
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C summoning Dr.Ashok (Residential Medical
Officer), who worked in a private hospital (AVM Hospital) to prove an
Accident Register which was recorded by him when the injured was
brought to the hospital.
4. As per the case of the prosecution and the proposed Accident
Register, the injured was brought dead. The said fact was recorded in the
Accident Register as per the case of the prosecution.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned
order on the ground that the prosecution shall not be allowed to fill up the
lacuna after seven long years. The learned counsel further contended that
he had cross examined the witnesses to impeach their credit and some of
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No.1279 of 2026
the witnesses have placed the occurrence in different areas. It is only to
change the nature of the case that the prosecution is now attempting to
produce the Accident Register and prove it through the doctor who
allegedly recorded it. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the prosecution had not mentioned any good reason for
introducing a new witness who was not even examined by the Police, and
for introducing of a new document.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the Accident
Register is a material document and the doctor who recorded the same is
a material witness to prove the said document. It was further submitted by
the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the Court below
considered all these aspects and permitted the prosecution to examine
Dr.Ashok to prove the Accident Register recorded by him.
7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions.
8. It is a settled position of law that if material evidence is omitted
or left out by the prosecution, even the Court can suo-motu summon the
material / document or the witnesses concerned for proving the relevant
fact. In the case on hand, the prosecution has so far not rested its case, the
matter is posted for examination of the investigating officer. Immediately
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No.1279 of 2026
after the occurrence, the injured person was taken to the nearby private
hospital (AVM Hospital), where Dr.Ashok, proposed witness received
the injured. As per the statement of PW1 given before the Police under
Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C, he has taken the injured to AVM Hospital. The
Doctor has recorded that the injured was brought dead to the hospital.
Therefore, the prosecution is not changing the nature of the case by
producing the Accident Register and summoning the doctor to prove the
same. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad
Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2013 (14) SCC 461
which lays down 14 guidelines for invoking Section 311 of Cr.P.C, was
cited by the learned counsel for the appellant to assail the impugned
order.
9. This Court carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant in this regard. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State Vs. N.Seenivasagan (2021 (14) SCC 1), held that the true test under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C is whether the evidence of person who is sought to
be examined or recalled is essential to the just decision of the case or not.
In the case on hand, the evidence proposed to be tendered by the
prosecution is highly relevant to the issue involved and of course, it will
prove from where the injured person was taken to the hospital and who
accompanied him. Therefore, examination of Dr.Ashok and proof of the
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No.1279 of 2026
Accident Register are highly essential to the just decision of the case. A
copy of the Accident Register which is proposed to be exhibited is
directed to be furnished to the defence by the Trial Court. The defence
will naturally be granted an opportunity to cross examine the witness
concerned to challenge the authenticity and validity of the document /
Accident Register.
10. In Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan (2019 (6) SCC 203) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the application under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C., cannot be rejected on the sole ground that the case had been
pending for an inordinate amount of time. In the cited case, the case was
pending for ten years. It was held in paragraph 13 as follows:
“ 13 ........... The length / duration of a case cannot
displace of the basic requirement of ensuring a just decision
after taking all the necessary and material evidence on
record. In other words, the age of the case by itself, cannot
be decisive of the matter when a prayer is made for
examination of a material witness’’.
11. Therefore, it is necessary to meet the ends of justice, that the
prosecution be given all fair opportunities to prove their case. None of the
objections raised by the appellant stand in the way of examining
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No.1279 of 2026
Dr.Ashok and proving the accident register he recorded.
12. The appellant raised an argument that as per Section 15-A(4) of
the SC/ST (PoA) Act, only a victim or his dependent shall have the right
to apply to the Special Court to summon witnesses or for production of
any document. This contention was also rightly rejected by the Trial
Court on the ground that Section 15-A(4) gives an additional power to the
victim in case of failure on the part of the prosecution to summon
relevant witnesses or documents. A right additionally given to the victim
cannot bar the right of the prosecution or Court to summon relevant
witnesses or production of material documents to prove their case.
Therefore, the argument of the appellant in this regard is rejected. It is
also to be noted that the prosecution has wrongly filed the application
under Section 230 of Cr.P.C instead of filing the application under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Quoting a wrong provision of law is not a ground
to reject the prayer of a party, the relief can be moulded accordingly by
the Court, as the Trial Court has rightly done. Therefore, this objection
also cannot be sustained.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court has already fixed a time limit of 4
weeks from 14.10.2026 to complete the examination of all prosecution
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No.1279 of 2026
witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution must ensure that all its witnesses
are examined within the stipulated time limit. With the above direction,
this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Indu
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
South Police Station
Thoothukudi
2. The Inspector of Police
South Police Station
Thoothukudi
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
Copy To :
Section Officer ( VR Section )
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No.1279 of 2026
D.LINGESWARAN, J.
Indu
Crl.A(MD) No.1279 of 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )