Examination Of Radiologist Essential When Offence Alleged Is Under Sections 326 & 307 IPC; Medical Jurist’s Examination Not Sufficient: Rajasthan High Court

The High Court was considering a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant challenging the order of the Session Judge whereby the application filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Referring to the judgments of the Apex Court, the Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Shah held, “Thus, taking guidance from the above-mentioned judgments, it is clear that for the purpose of determining the nature of injury, examination of the medical jurist, simplicitor would not be sufficient and the Radiologist, based upon whose X-ray report, the medical jurist has given his evidence, will be required to be examined and the X-rays will be required to be exhibited for determining the actual nature of injury. Thus, the examination of Radiologist is essential when the offence alleged is under Sections 326 and 307 IPC as it is only post his examination that the details of the X-ray and the nature of injury, based upon the X-ray can be brought on record.”

Advocate Naman Mohnot represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Narendra Gehlot represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An FIR was lodged at the instance of the petitioner-complainant that he, along with his family members, was residing in a joint family, and a verbal altercation took place between the children one day. It was further submitted that Mohammed Haider (younger brother of the petitioner-complainant) along with Illmuddin and Mohammed Samsuddin were talking and suddenly Mohammed Hussain with others, started assaulting all three persons, namely Mohammed Haider, Illmuddin and Mohammed Samsuddin. Based upon the FIR so lodged, the Police Officials started an investigation, and the injury reports of Mohammed Samsuddin, Illmuddin and Mohammed Haider were prepared. X-ray Report was also prepared, based upon which, the Doctor gave the opinion with regard to the nature of injuries.

Post examination of 19 witnesses, the statements of the accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 CrPC and the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 311 praying that the Doctor had opined about the nature of injury, being grievous and dangerous, based upon the X-ray report; however, the Radiologist was not examined. Thus, a request was made to summon the Radiologist. This application came to be rejected on the ground that the examination of a Radiologist was not necessary to prove the nature of the injury. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench affirmed that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be filed and considered at any stage of the trial, be it even at the stage of pronouncement of judgment. “Further the provision in question can be resorted to by the learned Trial Court with the view to aid it to come to a just decision or for the purpose of finding out the truth or obtaining proper facts which lead to just and correct decision in the case. The Court in such a case can call the person concerned as a witness, even though his name is not entered in the list of witnesses or can even re-examine a witness, who has already been examined”, it added.

The Bench explained that the denial of consideration of the application can be only in the circumstances where there is an apprehension of prejudice to the accused or that examination/re-examination of a witness was not required for a just decision of the case in hand. In the present case, no such prejudice has been shown or pleaded by the respondents.

The Bench was of the view that the trial would not be delayed as only a single witness was to be examined and the opinion of the witness was already part of record. As per the Bench, his presence was beneficial for the Court to arrive at a just decision to find out on what basis the doctor gave the opinion about the nature of the injury. “Thus, considering the above-mentioned circumstances, the ground of delay in filing the application or any prejudice being caused to the accused, cannot be sustained in the present case”, it stated.

The Bench noted that the Radiologist had given his opinion upon the X-ray, and based upon his opinion, the medical jurist had given his opinion with regard to the nature of injury. The doctor himself admitted that he had given his opinion, based upon the X-ray report which was prepared by the Radiologist. “It is thus, clear that in case the Radiologist is not examined, then the same will lead to miscarriage of justice as the nature of injuries would not be proved”, it mentioned.

Thus, finding the examination of a Radiologist to be essential, the Bench allowed the Criminal Revision Petition and directed the Trial Court to summon and examine the Radiologist at the earliest and also allow the accused to cross-examine the witness. “The learned Trial Court shall proceed to adjudicate the matter at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of passing of this order”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Ishtiyaq Ahmed v. State Of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:40104)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Naman Mohnot

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Narendra Gehlot, Advocates Omprakash Choudhary, Puma Ram, Ramdev Rajpurohit

Click here to read/download Order