Allowed

Kishore v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2019CRLMP/4290/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan reviewed a petition challenging an order refusing to call Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat as a medical witness. Finding a conflict in medical opinions and post-mortem reports, this court directed the lower court to summon the jurisat despite the petitioner having already cross-examined initial doctors.

What did the court decide?

Directed the learned court below to call Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (Retd.) as a witness.

Kishore Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

[CRLMP-4290/2018]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4290/2018

Kishore

----Petitioner

Versus

State

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. CL Mali For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

03/01/2019

¶14

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. claiming the following relief :-

¶15

“ vr vkijkf/kd fofo/k izkFkZuk ir i z Lrqr dj fuosnu gS fd vkns”k fnukad 20-092018 fo}ku viu ls”ku U;k;kf/k”k efguk mRihMu izdj.k tks/kiqj tks ewy ls”ku la[;k 41@ 2015 jkT; cuke fd”kksj esa Ikkfjr fd;k x;k gS Li’V :i ls U;kf;d izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx gksus ls fujLr djus dkfcy gSA vr vkns”k fnukad 20-09-2018 fujLr dj MkDVj ftlus loZizFke eqrdk dks ,e- Mh- ,e- vLirky esa HkrhZ fd;k Fkk rFkk MkDVj txnh”k twxrkoy lsokfuo z r esfMdy T;wfjLV ,eth,p gkWfLiVy tks/kiqj dks ryc djkus lac/kh izkFkZuk eatwj dh tkos Jheku th dh vfr dzik gksxhA ”

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the statement of Dr. Narendra Vaishnav, Dr. Sunil Garg and Dr. Amit Srivastava.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the issues of gangrene to the patient and the medical opinion required consideration of the application moved by the petitioner under Section 233 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

[CRLMP-4290/2018]

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the case itself rests upon the specialized medical opinion of Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat, therefore, it was appropriate that the court below should have called medical jurist Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat and the surgeon who could give definite conclusion regarding the medical condition.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further averred that the calling of the doctor giving the first treatment was also important, as it was the first level of examination by the medical specialist and would throw light upon the facts of the case.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor however, submits that three experts doctor have been examined and the petitioner got ample opportunity to cross-examine these doctors, and therefore, the calling of any more medical evidence through doctors would not be justified.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that impugned order is justified, as the required information about the medical condition has been clearly revealed by these three doctors and they have been examined.

¶23

In the rejoinder argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated from the medical report issued on 15.05.2015 that the Laxmi was having six injuries / wounds.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also demonstrated from the evidence rendered by the witnesses of the prosecution that there was no express injuries / wounds on the body of Laxmi.

¶25

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that there is an apparent dispute / conflict in the medical opinion and the post-

¶26

[CRLMP-4290/2018]

¶27

mortem report. Though it was open for the petitioner to have cross-examined the earlier doctors regarding the post-mortem report but the situation of difference of opinion clearly indicates that the application to the extent of calling of the medical jurists Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat should have been allowed by the learned court below. The learned Court below in the impugned order has not been able to justify that the petitioner had ample opportunity to justify the conflict in the post-mortem report and the medical opinion.

¶28

In light of the aforesaid observations, the present misc. petition is allowed to the limited extent and while modifying the impugned order dated 20.09.2018, learned court below is directed to call Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (Rtd.) medical jurists MG Hospital, Jodhpur, as a witness, as sought by the petitioner.

¶29

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶30

97-Sudheer/-

Kishore v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalla Ram Dangi Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Singh Vs Santosh Kunwar and Anr.

Gursewak Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Moti Lal @ Madhu Vs State

Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan