- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7864 CRL.P No. 202017 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.202017 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BHEEMANGOUDA S/O HANAMAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE HALAGERA, TQ. SHORAPUR DIST. YADGIR-585224. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH SHORAPUR PS NOW REPRESENTING BY ADDL. S.P.P. HCKB AT KALABURGI. 2. NAGAPPA S/O HANAMANT MADAR R/AT HALAGERA, TQ/ SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA M. REDDY., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD),UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR, SITTING AT Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7864 CRL.P No. 202017 of 2025 SHORPAUR IN SC NO.5091/2025 (ANNEXURE-J) AND ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER BY IMPOSING REASONABLE AMOUNT OF COST FOR RECALLING THE PWS9 TO 11, IN VIEW OF THE REASONS AS STATED ABOVE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP. 2. Petitioner is now subjected to criminal proceedings in S.C.No.5091/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. 3. The records placed before this Court disclose that on the date when the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer were present for examination, the defence counsel appearing for the petitioner could not cross- examine the said witnesses. Though the junior counsel appearing on behalf of the defence sought a short accommodation, explaining the unavoidable absence of the arguing counsel, the learned Sessions Judge abruptly - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7864 CRL.P No. 202017 of 2025 treated the cross-examination as “Nil” and proceeded to issue summons to the remaining witnesses. Consequently, the defence was deprived of an effective opportunity to cross-examine two official witnesses, who are pivotal to the prosecution case. 4. It is borne out from the order sheet that the prosecution had availed nearly seven adjournments to secure the presence of the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer. These witnesses were ultimately examined on a single day. On that day, owing to the demise of a distant relative, the defence counsel was compelled to rush to Hyderabad, which circumstance was neither deliberate nor intended to protract the proceedings. The defence counsel, therefore, instructed his junior to seek a short adjournment. In the considered view of this Court, the learned Sessions Judge could have, in the facts and circumstances of the case, granted a brief accommodation and adjourned the matter to the next date, particularly - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7864 CRL.P No. 202017 of 2025 when the prosecution itself had consumed substantial time in examining the very same witnesses. 5. The Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer are not formal witnesses. Their testimony goes to the very foundation of the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer’s evidence relates to the manner of investigation, recovery, compliance with statutory safeguards and the chain of circumstances, while the Medical Officer’s evidence pertains to the cause of death, nature of injuries, and the medical nexus sought to be established by the prosecution. Denial of an opportunity to cross-examine such crucial witnesses strikes at the heart of a fair and just trial. 6. It is trite law that the right of cross-examination is an integral facet of the right to a fair trial, which flows from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is enacted precisely to empower the Court to summon or recall - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7864 CRL.P No. 202017 of 2025 witnesses at any stage of the proceedings, if their evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The provision is intended to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it on hyper-technical grounds. 7. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge declining the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is cryptic and bereft of reasons. It does not reflect any application of mind to the gravity of the offence, the nature of the witnesses sought to be recalled, or the serious prejudice that would be caused to the accused. When the accused is facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, which entails severe penal consequences, the Trial Court is expected to lean in favour of ensuring fairness, rather than adopting a rigid and technical approach. 8. No doubt, there is some degree of laxness on the part of the defence counsel in not ensuring his presence on the relevant date. However, such lapse on the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7864 CRL.P No. 202017 of 2025 part of the counsel cannot and should not be permitted to operate to the irreversible detriment of the accused. Criminal jurisprudence consistently holds that the fault of the counsel ought not to be visited upon the litigant, particularly when denial of opportunity would result in miscarriage of justice. 9. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and has resulted in failure of justice. However, at the same time, to balance the interests of the prosecution and to discourage unnecessary delays, this Court deems it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.2,000/- on the accused while granting the relief sought. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7864 CRL.P No. 202017 of 2025 (ii) The impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed in S.C. No.5091/2025 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir, sitting at Shorapur, is hereby set aside. (iii) The learned Sessions Judge is directed to summon the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer by assigning a specific date. It is made clear that the defence counsel shall conclude the cross-examination of both the witnesses on the date so assigned, without seeking any further adjournment. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12 CT:SI