Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahid vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 February, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
Crl. Misc. No. M 5846 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
Crl. Misc. No. M 5846 of 2013
Date of decision: 20.02.2014
Sahid ........ Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
-.-
Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana
for the State of Haryana
Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 to 10
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
Rekha Mittal, J.
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code') has been preferred for issuance of directions to the police for getting Medical Board constituted from PGI, Rohtak or taking opinion from treating Surgeon/Doctor with regard to injury No. 1 suffered by petitioner Sahib on his head, pertaining to FIR No. 456 dated 15.11.2012 (Annexure P1) under sections 148, 149, 323, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Punhana, District Crl. Misc. No. M 5846 of 2013 2 Mewat.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was beaten by respondents No. 2 to 9 and he sustained number of injuries, including head injury as per medico legal report. The doctor opined that injuries No. 2 and 3 were caused with blunt weapon, but injury No. 1 was stated to be the result of sharp weapon caused within six hours of the medical examination. The patient was referred to the General Hospital Mandikhera, for x-ray and further management with the observations 'Neurosurgeon opinion' and from there; he was referred to Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, for better management. He was admitted there and was finally discharged on 14.11.2012. In Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, it was diagnosed that there was 'linear undisplaced fracture of left squamous part of temporal bone'. Thereafter, the petitioner made a complaint to the police on 15.11.2012, on the basis whereof, FIR No. 456 dated 15.11.2012 was registered. It is argued with vehemence that the police in connivance with the accused took an opinion from Dr. Asha on 29.11.2012 in regard to nature of injury No. 1 sustained by the petitioner. The doctor opined in the following terms:-
"Injury No. 1 in MLR No. A/24/12 was caused by sharp weapon as per MLR and as per CT scan report linear undisplaced fracture of Lt. squamous part of temporal bone. In MLR injury was on Rt. Parietal region as there is no underline fracture, so injury No. 1 is simple, sharp in nature as there is no surgical intervention also. However, there is associated fracture on Lt. side of temporal bone as per CT scan report of Safdarjang Hospital at the time of examination there was no injury on Lt. side of skull. According to CT scan report, Crl. Misc. No. M 5846 of 2013 3 fracture can be due to blunt weapon and is grievous in nature as patient was on conservative treatment and admitted for one day (possibility of old injury cannot be ruled out)."
Counsel has strenuously argued that the police/investigating officer neither got the opinion of Neurosurgeon nor of the treating doctor in Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi in regard to fracture on the left side of skull noticed during CT scan examination of the petitioner. It is further argued that Dr. Asha gave a wrong opinion that possibility is not ruled out that the injury on the left side of skull is an old injury.
According to counsel, the respondents have been charged for commission of offence punishable under sections 148, 149, 323, 324 and 506 IPC, but in case, the police had obtained opinion of the treating surgeon/doctor or Medical Board of PGI Rohtak, it may aggravate culpability of the accused i.e. for offence under Section 307 IPC. It is further submitted that it is in the interest of justice that a direction may be issued either to get a Medical Board of PGI, Rohtak constituted or opinion is sought from the treating surgeon/doctor in regard to injury No. 1.
Counsel for the private respondents has submitted that the petitioner submitted an application before the trial Court for the aforesaid relief, which was rejected by the Court. The petitioner carried the matter in revision and the revisional Court, on a detailed consideration of the matter, held against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is hell- bent to indict the respondents for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC by taking advantage of some fracture being noticed on the left side of his skull when admittedly, it is none of the plea of the petitioner that the accused dealt any blow with a blunt weapon or otherwise on left side of the Crl. Misc. No. M 5846 of 2013 4 skull. During medico legal examination of the petitioner, only one injury i.e. incised wound was found over right parietal region and the doctor, who conducted medical examination advised x-ray of skull, AP LAT as well as to seek neurosurgeon opinion in regard to that injury only.
Counsel for the State has endorsed the arguments advanced by counsel for the private respondents.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. The petitioner was medico legally examined by Dr. Asha in regard to injuries sustained by him due to assault. As per medico legal report prepared by the examiner doctor, the following injuries were found on his person:-
i) 6.2 x 6.0 cm bone deep incised wound over Rt.
Parietal region, Adv. x ray skull, AP LAT neuron
surgeon opinion;
ii) C/o pain and swelling over Rt. Elbow lateral aspect,
Adv. x ray Rt elbow AP LAT; and
iii) C/o pain and swelling Rt. Side of chest Adv. X ray chest.
The dispute between the parties is in regard to injury no. 1, bone deep incised wound over right parietal region. The injury was subject to CT scan examination in Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, but no fracture of the underline bone in the right parietal region was found. However, in the CT Scan, linear undisplaced fracture of left squamous part of temporal bone was noticed and as per the CT Scan report, fracture can be due to blunt weapon. Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that as per statement made by the petitioner, basis of the first information report lodged in the Police Station Punhana District Mewat, the petitioner has alleged only one Crl. Misc. No. M 5846 of 2013 5 blow with pharsa on his head, attributed to respondent No. 2 - Ronak son of Sakir. He has not attributed second and successive blows either with a sharp or blunt weapon on his head. Dr. Asha, who conducted medico legal examination, gave her opinion in respect of injury No. 1 on the basis of CT scan report with further opinion in regard to linear undisplaced fracture of left squamous part of temporal bone. At this juncture, there is no material on record to doubt the opinion given by Dr. Asha or her having connived with the accused to give such an opinion. Counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any authoritative medical text to support his contention that an injury with a sharp edged weapon over right parietal region can result in linear undisplaced fracture of left squamous part of temporal bone. He has also failed to cite any such rule/law that the investigating agency was obliged to seek the opinion of the treating surgeon/doctor of Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi. The petitioner has not placed on record any document in regard to his treatment in Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi. The petitioner, if so advised, may file an application for examination of the treating surgeon/doctor, by invoking provisions of Section 311 of the Code, which would be decided by the learned trial Court on its merits, if so filed.
Without commenting any further, lest it may cause prejudice to either of the parties in the pending trial, I do not find any error much less illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below rejecting the prayer of the petitioner.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed.
(Rekha Mittal) 20.02.2014 Judge mohan