Primary medical testimony essential for just decision transcends procedural delays and prosecution negligence under Section 311 CrPC.

The applicants were prosecuted in RCT No. 41/2013 for an incident occurring on August 28, 2012, involving a family land dispute.

The trial concluded in 2019 with a conviction under Section 323 IPC; however, the appellate court remanded the matter on June 30, 2023, with a specific direction to examine the concerned medical officers.

After the remand, prosecution evidence was closed, and final arguments were heard on May 4, 2026.

On the same day, the prosecution moved an application under Section 348 BNSS (formerly Section 311 Cr.P.C.) to recall and examine Dr. D.P. Pandey, the doctor who prepared the original Medico-Legal Certificates (MLCs).

The Trial Court allowed the application on May 13, 2026, which the applicants challenged as an attempt to fill lacunae at a belated stage.

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution’s application for the examination of a material witness after the conclusion of final arguments

2. Whether the delayed examination of a medical witness constitutes an impermissible attempt to fill lacunae in the prosecution's case

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.) regarding inherent powers

Section 348 of the BNSS (formerly Section 311 Cr.P.C.) governing the power to summon material witnesses

The "determinative factor" for summoning a witness is whether the evidence is essential for a just decision, regardless of the stage of the proceedings

Principle from State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram (1980) and Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI (2019) that Section 311 powers cannot be used specifically to patch up weaknesses or fill lacunae in a case

The High Court reasoned that while the prosecution exhibited a lack of diligence by filing the application at a highly belated stage, delay alone is not a sufficient ground for rejection if the evidence is essential for the "just decision of the case"

The court noted that because the appellate court had previously remanded the matter with a specific directive to examine the doctors involved in the treatment, the testimony of Dr. D.P. Pandey (who prepared the initial MLCs) was foundational medical evidence and not a mere procedural afterthought

The Court found that any potential prejudice to the accused could be mitigated by the right to cross-examine and lead rebuttal evidence

Consequently, the trial court’s exercise of discretion was deemed consistent with the objective of discovering the truth rather than an illegal attempt to fill a lacuna

The Court held that the examination of Dr. D.P. Pandey was essential for a complete adjudication as per the prior remand directions

The Court directed that the applicants be afforded a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness and lead consequential evidence and that the trial court conclude the trial within four months