Dismissed

Dharmendra Singh v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024A482/18851/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order that rejected the request to summon medical board doctors under Section 311 Cr.P.C., noting delays and inconsistencies in the reports.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the order dismissing the Section 311 application was dismissed.

Dharmendra Singh vs State of Up and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:199236

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18851 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramesh Chandra Agrahari

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Sri Rakesh Dubey , learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ramesh Chandra Agrahari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Kamleshwar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No.52, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 393 of 2017 (State Vs. Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart) arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2017, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar whereby the application under 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that FIR dated 17.1.2017 has been lodged alleging that on 17.1.2017 at 10:0 pm, brother of the first informant was returning from a Temple situated at Panki to his house. In the meantime, accused persons came and shot on fire on Innova Vehicle. The brother of the first informant sustained fire arm injury on his face and he reached Police Station Chakeri after driving the vehicle. The first information report has been lodged within 30 minutes of the incident. After lodging of the F.I.R., medical examination was conducted at 23.23. hours. As per medical report following injuries have been found.

¶9

(a) 1.5 cm X 2.0 cm oval shaped circle wound on right cheek margin of wound averted, mild blackening around wound 1.05 cm Depth, no tattooing bleeding present.

¶10

(b) 2 cm X 2.8 cm slightly oval shaped wound on left cheek Margin averted, no blackening bleeding present, no tattooing present.

¶11

¶12

3(i). After submitting the charge-sheet, Medical Board has been constituted on the basis of order passed by the Superintendent of Police and a report has been submitted by the Medical Board regarding injuries of the injured Narendra Singh @ Pintu Sengar.

¶13

3(ii). The first informant filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 31.03.2024 for summoning two doctors namely Dr. Raghvendra and Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta (Doctors of Medical Board) as prosecution witnesses, who filed a report after filing of charge sheet.

¶14

3(iii) As per statements of both the doctors there is material inconsistency. Both the doctors proved the report of medical examination.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that examination of the doctors of medical board Dr. Raghvendra and Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta are necessary for the just decision of the case. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the the judgments of The Apex Court in Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8315 of 2018 decided on 16th April, 2019 and Varsha Garg Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 518.

¶16

Learned Senior counsel for the private opposite party no.2/accused submits that the medical board has not considered the initial medical report of the injured and no opinion with regard to earlier medical examination has been given. It is further submitted that the medical board has been constituted after submitting the charge-sheet without any permission of the Court.

¶17

2 of 3

¶18

It is further submitted that the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been filed after about one year of the recording the evidence of two doctors. It is further submitted that as per report of medical board dated 18.10.2018 an examination through C.T. Scan has been conducted after about one year 9 months of the incident only. At this stage, it is significant to note that there is a dispute that injury was sustained by blunt and hard object or fire arm injury. The Medical Board has submitted a report on 18.10.2018. In the present case, PW2 Dr. Ramkesh, who examined the sole injured Narendra Singh @ Pintu Sengar, got concluded his evidence by the prosecution on 10.09.2021. Second doctor who got prepared medical examination report at Rejency Hospital, Kanpur Nagar (Private Hospital) PW6 Dr. Anil Kumar examined himself on 31.05.2023.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant fairly admits that this report is a copy of the government record which is not liable to be proved.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the application is dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.12.2024 AKT

¶22

3 of 3

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Sharma and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Manjul Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Manik Chand vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Buta Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sudama Devi vs State of U.P. and Another