CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 01 MP CK 0064

Pooja Singh vs Dashrath Singh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 16 January 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 61 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 329 words

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J

1.

The present revision is filed under section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by VIII ASJ & Special Judge (O.A.W.), Indore in S.T.No. 478/2018 whereby the court below has dismissed the petitioner's application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of material witnesses i.e. Dr. Rajni Joshi (PW-1), Dr. Vaidhya Prakash (PW-6) and Dr. Ashok Thakur (PW-7) to prove the contents of their medial reports.

2.

It is argued that the statement of aforesaid medical witnesses do not clearly describe the injuries suffered by the petitioner whereas it was necessary for the prosecution to get the statements of the said medical witnesses carefully and they have not described the injuries suffered by the petitioner. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nahadariya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1980 JabLJ 501 and also the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey (Criminal Appeal No. 447/1998) dated 29.4.1992.

3.

Counsel for the respondent/State supports the order impugned and submits that trial court has rightly rejected the application under section 311 Cr.P.C..

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the testimony of Dr. Rajni Joshi(PW-1), Dr. Vaidhya Prakash (PW-6) and Dr. Ashok Thakur (PW-7), it is manifest that they have described the nature of the injuries and also stated that the aforesaid reports were signed by them. Since the reports submitted by the Doctors have been admitted and therefore, the defence will not get any benefit because of non-description of injuries. Once the medical report is exhibited through Doctor, contents of the aforesaid documents are deemed to be admitted. The defence would not get any benefit because the Exhibits are admitted by the Medical Officers.

In view of aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed.