Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Opportunity   to   cross­examine   PW10   was   granted   to   the accused but he did not question anything to the witness.

PW­11 Dr. Meetu Salhan (Specialist Paediatrics, Safdarjung Hospital)   deposed   that  in   the   year   2014,   she   was   working   as   a Medical   officer   in   Casualty,   Safdarjung   hospital.   On   17.10.2014, injured Archana was medically examined by Dr. Chetna Chaudhary who   had   prepared   MLC   Ex.PW­10/B.   She   also   checked   the   said MLC. Witness explained the injury mentioned in the MLC and stated regarding opinion being given as 'grievous blunt' thereon. As per the FIR No. 899/2014             State  Vs. Meena & Ors.                       Page No.  14 of  26 MLC, the injured Archana had sustained following injuries like bite mark over the right cheeks near the right eye, multiple abrasion over the right side of the neck, bite mark over the right forearm, abrasion over the left side of the chin and redness present over the right palm (hypothener eminence), she had a history of loss of consciousness, headache, generalise bodyache and difficulty in speaking. Patient was referred   for   further   evaluation   to   Neuro   Surgery   department, Opthalmology  and ENT   department. In Neuro  Surgery department, non contract CT was done which showed a normal record which was Ex.PW­10/C. In ENT department, the patient was evaluated and found to   have   traumatic   perforation   of   the   left   tympanic   membrane   vide ENT   report   dated   17.10.2014   which   was   Ex.PW­11/A.   Further, Audiometry was done which showed conductive hearing loss in the left ear which suggest permanent privation of hearing of left ear of the injured Archana vide audiometry report dated 01.05.2015 pertaining to injured Archana which was Ex.PW­11/B and as per the aforesaid evaluation   report,   Dr.   Sudeep   K.C.   opined   the   nature   of   injury   as grievous blunt on MLC Ex.PW­10/B. During cross­examination PW­11 deposed that it was correct that she did not have any personal knowledge regarding the fact and incident of this case. It was correct that alleged history of MLC does not disclose the name of accused persons. It was wrong to suggest that MLC does not bear any physical injury of injured.