The petitioners challenged the trial court's refusal to constitute a medical board for re-examination of the injured's injuries. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that contrary medical reports can be challenged during trial and the petitioners have the right to cross-examine the medical jurist.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:19204]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1428/2025
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Anil Kumar |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
07/05/2025
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.02.2025, by way of filing the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that an FIR No. 405/2024 registered with Police station Roopwas District Bharatpur was lodged against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 109(1), 117(2), 118(2) and 3(5) of BNS, thereafter charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 109(1) of BNS.
It is contended that in the first injury report dated 21.11.2024, the injuries sustained to injured Kedar Singh were found to be grievous in nature. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer sought information from the concerned medical jurist and the injuries sustained to injured Kedar Singh were reported to be
[2025:RJ-JP:19204]
[CRLMP-1428/2025]
(2 of 2)
dangerous to life. The petitioner's prayer to constitute the medial board and seeking fresh information was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 17.02.2025, therefore the order passed by learned trial court may be quashed and set aside and trial court may be directed to constitute a medical board to reexamine the injured regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and contended that no prejudice has caused to the petitioners and petitioners have right to cross-examine the concerned Medical Jurist and also to rebut the second opinion of the medical jurist regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the injured.
Heard and perused the material available on the record.
The contrary medical report regarding nature of injuries can be questioned during the trial and the petitioners have every right to cross-examine the concerned medical jurist, who has given the contrary opinions.
Therefore, considering the above facts, this court is not inclined to interfere in the order passed by learned ADJ No. 2 Roopwas District Bayana.
Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands dismissed.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
ashu /31
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court should constitute a medical board to re-examine the nature of injuries contrary to the medical jurist's opinion.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anup Singh
Lochan Singh
State Of Rajasthan
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
