Gauransh Uniyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of this C-482 application, applicant has challenged the order dated 27.06.2023, passed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2012, “State Vs. Gauransh Uniyal & Others”, whereby the application no.110(Ka) under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of the accused-applicant, for recalling the witness PW-5 Dr. J.P. Devsali, has been rejected.

The application no. 110(Ka) was moved on behalf of the applicant/accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 14.05.2015. In the said application, it has been categorically stated that PW-5 Dr. J.P. Devsali, who conducted postmortem of the deceased, was left to be asked certain questions regarding the suicidal tendency of the deceased as well as regarding the presence of cadaveric spasm at the hand of the deceased, when PW-5 Dr. J.P. Devsali was cross-examined during the trial.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that for the purpose of re-examination, PW-5 Dr. J.P. Devsali is required to be recalled and prays for his recall.

The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the recall of the aforesaid witness PW-5 Dr. J.P. Devsali is necessary for the just and judicious adjudication of the trial pending against the applicant for the reason that by these two questions, the case of the applicant would be proved as to whether it is the case of suicide and not a case of the dowry death, for which he is facing the trial.

I have gone through the impugned order dated 27.06.2023 and perused the postmortem report as well as the application moved by the applicant before the trial court.

In the opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned by the learned trial court while rejecting the said application appear to be convincing for the reasons that PW-5 Dr. J.P. Devsali was a Doctor, who only conducted a postmortem, and a doctor who conducted postmortem cannot give any indication regarding the suicidal tendency of the deceased.

The another finding of the learned trial court while rejecting the recall application regarding the cadaveric spasm present or absent on the hand of the deceased, also appears to be convincing that had there being any such mark at the hand of the deceased, it should have certainly noticed by the doctor conducting the postmortem report.

At this stage, even if the doctor is called and no such mark has been noticed by him during the postmortem and the same has not been indicated in the postmortem report, it will be nothing but a futile exercise.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in the present C-482 application and the same is accordingly dismissed.