Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gokhran Devi vs State Of H.P. & Others on 12 May, 2022
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
.
Gokhran Devi Versus State of H.P. & others Cr.MMO No.295 of 2020 12.05.2022 Present: Mr. Kashmir Singh Thakur and Mr. Harjeet Singh Thakur, Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Mr. Sumesh Raj, Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Manoj Bagga, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3 State.
None for respondent No.4.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Heard. Record of the learned Trial Court also perused. What astonishes the Court is that whereas it was expressly contained in the Medico Legal Certificate of the petitioner as was issued on 05.06.2018, after the examination of the petitioner, which included the xray of left hand, when the opinion given by the Medical Officer upon perusal of the xray with regard to injury No.2 was that it was a grievous injury and the probable duration of the injury was mentioned as less than six hours, then how subsequently the same Medical Officer after about a lapse of five months as from the date when ::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2022 20:04:04 :::CIS .
2 the Medico Legal Certificate was entered into, has given the opinion that duration of the injury suffered by the petitioner is more than three weeks.
The contention of learned Additional Advocate General that this opinion was given based upon the opinion of the Radiologist also does not satisfies the Court, for the reason that perusal of the record demonstrates that there is cutting made by the Radiologist also while giving the opinion which raises doubt about the credibility of the opinion so given by the Radiologist.
Before any further observation is made by the Court, let notice be issued to both, the Radiologist as well as the Medical Officer, to file their respective affidavits, justifying the respective stand taken by them while submitting their opinion.
As a word of caution, it is stated that in case the Court is not satisfied with the opinion of the Medical Officer and the Radiologist or their bonafidies, then the Court may have to implead them as party respondents in the case in their ::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2022 20:04:04 :::CIS .
3 capacity as coconspirators. Learned Additional Advocate General is requested by the Court to inform about the particulars of said two officers and thereafter, Court Notices be issued to them, returnable for 27.06.2022, which notices shall be accompanied by the order which has been passed by the Court today.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 12, 2022 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2022 20:04:04 :::CIS