Material omissions in medical evidence and Section 313 examination require a limited remand for fresh judgment.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for the shooting death of the informant’s father.

The prosecution relied, among other evidence, on post-mortem evidence and an FSL report connecting cartridges recovered in the case with a pistol later seized from the appellant.

In appeal, the appellant challenged the delay in lodging the FIR, the reliability of the alleged eyewitnesses, and the failure to put all incriminating material—including the seizure and FSL evidence—to him in his examination under Section 313 CrPC.

The informant and the State submitted that the doctors should be recalled to explain the complete post-mortem report and that the appellant should be questioned afresh about all incriminating material.

1. Whether the trial court’s refusal to recall the doctors to explain the complete post-mortem report warranted setting aside the conviction and remitting the case for further proceedings.

2. Whether the failure to put all incriminating circumstances to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC required a fresh examination and retrial-stage consideration.

Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon, examine, or recall a witness where doing so is essential to the just decision of the case; Section 313 CrPC requires the accused to be given an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence.

The court relied on Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, (2023) 13 SCC 563, for the duties of the Public Prosecutor and trial court to conduct a fair trial and address lapses in the presentation and consideration of evidence.

The judgment also refers to the corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita as Section 351.

The High Court found that the post-mortem report had been marked in evidence, but its complete contents—including the injuries recorded in specified columns—had not been adequately elicited from the doctors.

It considered the informant’s request to recall the doctor bona fide and held that the trial court erred in rejecting it.

The Court also found that the appellant had not been confronted under Section 313 CrPC with all incriminating material, including the evidence concerning the pistol, cartridges, and FSL report.

In light of these omissions and the duties identified in Harendra Rai, the Court considered a limited remand appropriate, without deciding the merits of the conviction.

The conviction judgment and sentencing order were set aside insofar as they related to the appellant, and the matter was remitted to the trial court to recall the doctors for explanation of the post-mortem report, permit the defence to cross-examine them, put all incriminating material to the appellant in a fresh Section 313 CrPC examination, allow him to adduce defence evidence if advised, and then deliver a fresh judgment.

The trial court was directed to complete the exercise within four months; the High Court expressed no opinion on the merits.