Seven Years On, Madras HC Upholds Order Summoning Doctor To Prove Record That Man Was Brought Dead

The appellant challenged the Special Court’s order permitting the prosecution, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to examine Dr. Ashok and prove an Accident Register made at AVM Hospital, recording that the injured person was brought dead.

The appellant argued that introducing the doctor and document after a lengthy delay would fill a lacuna and alter the prosecution case.

The prosecution submitted that the evidence was material.

The High Court noted that the prosecution had not closed its case, that examination of the investigating officer remained pending, and that PW1’s Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement said he had taken the injured to AVM Hospital.

Section 311 Cr.P.C. permits the Court to summon a material witness or evidence where it is essential to the just decision of the case; the controlling inquiry is whether the proposed evidence is essential to that decision, as stated in State v. N. Seenivasagan (2021) 14 SCC 1.

The duration of a case, by itself, does not defeat a request to examine a material witness, as held in Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan (2019) 6 SCC 203.

Section 15-A(4) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act gives the victim or dependent an additional right to seek witnesses or documents; it does not bar the prosecution or Court from doing so.

A mistaken reference to a statutory provision is not, by itself, a ground to reject a request where the Court can mould the relief appropriately.

The appellant also relied on Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013) 14 SCC 461, which sets out guidelines for invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C.

The Court found the proposed testimony and Accident Register relevant because the record could establish where the injured person was taken and who accompanied him; PW1’s police statement supported the account that he took the injured to AVM Hospital.

As the prosecution case remained open, permitting the evidence would not change its nature or amount to filling a lacuna.

Applying N. Seenivasagan, the Court held the evidence essential to a just decision; applying Manju Devi, it rejected the case’s duration as a sufficient ground to refuse it.

The defence would receive the Accident Register and an opportunity to cross-examine the doctor, preserving its ability to challenge the document’s authenticity and validity.

The Court also held that Section 15-A(4) did not exclude the prosecution’s or Court’s power, and that the wrong statutory reference did not invalidate the request.

It directed the Trial Court to furnish a copy of the Register to the defence and provide an opportunity to cross-examine the doctor.

The prosecution was directed to ensure that all its witnesses were examined within the four-week period fixed by the Supreme Court from 14 October 2026.