Dismissed¶42

Monesh v. State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Mar 2026CRL OP/6427/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; CRL OP 6427 of 2026; M. Nirmal Kumar J.; recall of witness; Section 311 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; prosecution application to recall P.W.13 neurologist and examine ambulance driver; not to fill up lacuna but better appreciation of evidence; best evidence in criminal trial; murder trial SC No. 37 of 2022; Sections 294(b), 302, 341, 342 r/w 34 IPC; Crime No. 604 of 2021 Alangiyam Police Station Tiruppur; Accident Register not marked; P.W.21 uncross-examined; medical records production; further cross-examination of P.W.12; petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the Trial Court's order allowing the prosecution's application to recall P.W.13 and to examine the Ambulance Driver ¶29

Monesh Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 03.09.2025 of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2025 in SC.No.37 of 2022, allowing the prosecution to recall P.W.13 and to examine the ambulance driver, should be set aside

¶21

Court's answer

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the Trial Court's order allowing the prosecution's application to recall P.W.13 and to examine the Ambulance Driver

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court is directed to recall P.W.s 12 and 13 for further examination and to give the petitioners/accused an opportunity to cross-examine them

¶41

Key takeaways

Producing the concerned medical records will be beneficial for both the prosecution and the defence and is needed in the interest of justiceobiter¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.) dismissed a criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS by three accused (Monesh, Chandru, Sathish) in SC No. 37 of 2022 (offences under Sections 294(b), 302, 341, 342 r/w 34 IPC; Crime No. 604 of 2021, Alangiyam Police Station, Tiruppur District), challenging the order dated 03.09.2025 of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2025 allowing the prosecution, on a Section 311 Cr.P.C. petition raised after defence questions to the Investigating Officer (P.W.20) about blood stains in the ambulance, to recall P.W.13 Dr. Chandiramohan (Neurologist, Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore) and to examine T. Faisal Hussain, the Ambulance Driver who had shifted the injured from Government Hospital, Dharapuram to Coimbatore, the Accident Register having gone unmarked and the driver uncited. The Trial Court had reasoned the examination was not to fill up any lacuna but only for better appreciation of evidence, the witnesses being independent. Finding no reason to interfere, and noting Faisal Hussain had since been examined as P.W.21 without defence cross-examination while the medical records awaited production, the Court, on the petitioner's request, additionally directed recall of P.W.12 (Dr. Harish Prabu, who gave first aid at Government Hospital, Dharapuram) together with P.W.13 for further examination and cross-examination. Petition dismissed with the above direction; connected Crl.MP.No.4737 of 2026 closed.

¶1

1/5 CRL OP No. 6427 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 6427 of 2026 and CRL.MP.No.4737 of 2026

¶7

Monesh

¶8

Chandru

¶9

Sathish

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

State Rep.by, Inspector of Police, Alangiyam Police Station, Tiruppur District. Crime No.604 of 2021.

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2025 in SC.No.37 of 2022 dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.N.Arunkumar

¶16

For Respondent(s): Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

2/5

¶19

CRL OP No. 6427 of 2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This criminal original petition is filed to set aside the order dated 03.09.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2025 in SC.No.37 of 2022 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram.

¶22

The petitioners/accused 1 to 3 are facing trial for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302, 341, 342 r/w 34 IPC in S.C. No. 37 of 2022 and so far, 20 witnesses have been examined. At this stage, the prosecution filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 3 of 2025 seeking to recall P.W.13 Dr. Chandiramohan, Neurologist, who was working at Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore at the relevant point of time and one T Faisal Hussain, the Ambulance Driver for the reason that the injured was initially taken to Government Hospital, Dharapuram; that thereafter, he was transferred to Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore in the ambulance driven by the said T. Faisal Hussain, Ambulance Driver; that though the details were recorded in the Accident Register, but for some reason, the Accident Register was not marked and the said Faisal Hussain was not cited as a witness. The Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.20 and to him specific questions had been put by the Defence Counsel whether there were any blood stains found in the ambulance vehicle. In order to clear the doubt, a petition under Section 311

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

3/5 CRL OP No. 6427 of 2026

¶25

Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution to recall P.W.13 and to examine Faisal Hussain, the Ambulance Driver.

¶26

The Trial Court finding reason and that the examination of the

¶27

witnesses was not to fill up any lacuna but only for better appreciation of evidence; that the Doctor and the Ambulance Driver, being independent witnesses, having no allegiance either to the prosecution or to the accused, may be examined for better appreciation and it is always prudent in a criminal trial, that the best evidence is produced, allowed the said petition. Hence, the present criminal original petition.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the materials on record.

¶29

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order under

¶30

challenge.

¶31

At this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in this case, additional witness Faisal Hussain was examined as P.W.21 and the counsel for the accused has not chosen to cross-examine him. Now. P.W.13 alone has to be examined and further, the medical records concerned in this case have to be produced.

¶32

It will only be beneficial for both the prosecution and for the defence if those medical records are brought in and also, in the interest of justice, those records need to be produced.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

4/5

¶35

CRL OP No. 6427 of 2026

¶36

¶37

M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

¶38

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it would be

¶40

appropriate if Doctor Harish Prabu, who had initially given first aid to the deceased at Government Hospital, Dharapuram, examined as P.W,12, is summoned for further cross-examination.

¶41

The Trial Court is directed to recall P.W.s 12 and 13 in this case for further examination and also give an opportunity to the petitioners/accused to cross-examine them.

¶42