Dismissed

Ranveer v. State

Rajasthan HC23 Sept 2021CRLMP/686/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought a stay on investigation and a direction for a fresh radiologist's opinion regarding a medical report gap in an IPC case. The High Court held the incident was over a year old, making a fresh report insufficient, and disposed of the petition while directing the investigating agency to proceed with existing evidence.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; the investigating agency was directed to proceed with existing medical evidence; the stay petition was disposed of.

Ranveer Vs State — Medical Negligence | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 686/2021

¶3

Ranveer S/o Nihal Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Lasedi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State, Through P.p.

¶7

Nihal Singh S/o Sukharam, Lasedi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶8

Jasveer Singh S/o Nihal Singh, Lasedi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶9

Praveen S/o Jasveer, Lasedi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati, PP Mr. Sushil Bishnoi

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

23/09/2021

¶15

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶16

The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition against the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by learned Upper Sessions Judge No.1, Rajgarh, District Churu, in which, the learned revisionary court has directed to take the fresh opinion of the Radiologist for the case in hand arising out of FIR No.175/2020 where the investigation was going on under Section 452, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 379/34 of IPC.

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CRLMP-686/2021]

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the serious lacuna has occurred in the medical report on account of the medical report and unless the independent Radiologist’s opinion is taken, the same cannot be cured accepting the plea of counsel for the respondents, this Court ordered that the x-ray be sent to the Radiologist for fresh examination.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Radiologist has opined that the x-ray is old, and therefore, the image is not clear, and thus, the opinion cannot be given.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents, at this stage, submits that the x-ray be done, but this Court is constrained to observe that the incident in question is more than a year old and any kind of fresh report will not be suffice for the purpose of adjudication.

¶22

In light of the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of while directing the learned investigating agency to proceed with the medical evidence already on record. Since, the issue of fresh medical report has already been dealt with by this Court, therefore, the order dated 05.01.2021 shall have no effect upon investigation. Stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶23

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶24

23-Zeeshan

Ranveer v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranveer 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

Smt Aarushi Jain Vs State

Rajkumar Vs State

Het Ram and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandani Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Vs State of Rajasthan