[2025:RJ-JD:946] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 761/2023 Devendra Sangwa S/o Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Lampolai Tehsil Merta Dist. Nagaur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with Mr. Omprakash Choudhary Mr. Ramavtar Tada HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Order 07/01/2025 The present criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No.04/2012, by which the application of the petitioner filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was complainant in this case, lodged an FIR against the accused persons, in which after investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against two accused persons viz. Bhabhutram and Laduram for offence under Sections 323, 325 and 308/34 IPC. During the course of trial, the petitioner- complainant filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the Dr. Devkant, who sent the operation note of injured Ramniwas was material witness in this case. Counsel [2025:RJ-JD:946] (2 of 3) [CRLR-761/2023] further submits that without assigning any cogent reason, the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by the counsel that the learned trial Court gave finding that the operation note was exhibited by PW-13 Dr. Sumer Singh, therefore, no need for summoning Dr. Devkant in this case. It is further argued that Dr. Sumer Singh (PW/13) stated in his cross examination that the operation note was sent by Dr. Devkant to him, therefore, he is the material witness in this case and the learned trial Court without considering this important aspect of the matter has wrongly rejected his application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed as prayed. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused-respondents opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that a detailed order has already been passed by the trial Court and the operation note of injured Ramniwas had already been exhibited by Dr. Sumer Singh (PW- 13), therefore, there is no need to examine Dr. Devkant in this matter, so the petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be rejected. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the material available on record. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reproduced as:- “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. - Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding [2025:RJ-JD:946] (3 of 3) [CRLR-761/2023] under this Code, summon any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” Section 311 Cr.P.C. is a powerful tool designed to ensure the justice. The most essential aim to ensure that a trial is conducted in a fair and just manner, allowing the Court to obtain all the relevant facts and evidence, even if it requires further examination or evidence beyond what was initially presented. Since the operation note was sent by Dr. Devkant and due to oversight the name of Dr. Devkant had not been mentioned in the list of the witnesses, therefore, the examination of Dr. Devkant is very much essential to reach on the conclusion in this case and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has wrongly been rejected by the trial Court. In view of above the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Merta in Sessions Case No.04/2012 is hereby quashed and set aside and the trial Court is directed to call the Dr. Devkant for his examination and after his examination, the trial may proceed accordingly. Stay petition is also disposed of accordingly. (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 117-Ishan/-