The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has declined to interfere with a trial court’s decision to close the evidence of two additional witnesses in a long-pending criminal case linked to an alleged forged marksheet used during a Zila Parishad election. The Court emphasized that criminal trials cannot be prolonged indefinitely when witnesses remain untraceable.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Chimna Ram, the informant in the case, challenging an order of the trial court dated March 6, 2026. The dispute stems from allegations that a respondent used a forged Class 10 marksheet while contesting local elections in 2015.
After investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the prosecution evidence was completed. Later, the petitioner sought to introduce two additional witnesses-one linked to RTI information and another who had filed an affidavit in related proceedings-to support documents already on record.
The trial court allowed this request but made it conditional and directed efforts to secure the witnesses’ presence.
As detailed in the order sheets (pages 2–4), repeated attempts were made to summon the witnesses, including issuing summons, bailable warrants, and even arrest warrants. However, both witnesses remained untraceable despite these efforts.
The trial court eventually closed their evidence, noting that the matter-pending since 2019-was part of cases involving public representatives that require speedy disposal under Supreme Court monitoring directions.
Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu noted that the trial had already progressed significantly, with prosecution evidence recorded and the case pending for over six years.
The Court highlighted that “a criminal trial cannot be permitted to remain pending indefinitely for securing the presence of witnesses who remain untraceable despite repeated efforts.”
It further observed that while Section 311 CrPC allows courts to summon additional evidence for a just decision, this power cannot be used to delay proceedings endlessly.
“The inability to examine the said witnesses is not on account of any lapse, but due to their non-availability despite due process,” the bench noted.
The Court also reiterated that an informant’s role is limited and does not extend to controlling the course of prosecution.
Concluding that the trial court had taken all reasonable steps and exercised its discretion properly, the High Court found no illegality in closing the evidence.
“The order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity warranting interference,” the bench held while dismissing the petition.
Case Details
Case Title: Chimna Ram vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1969/2026
Judge: Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu
Decision Date: 07 April 2026
