1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants-original accused call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 18th March, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jetpur below exhibit-79 in the Sessions Case No.22 of 2014 by which the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application exhibit-79 filed by the public prosecutor appearing for the State seeking permission to put a leading question to a doctor as an expert witness in his examination in chief.

2. The facts giving rise to this application are as under:

2.1 The applicants are facing trial in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jetpur for the offence punishable under sections 376(1)(2)D, 323, 504, 506(2) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of the trial, Dr. Kirtan Manojbhai Vyas, a Gynecologist entered the witness box as the Prosecution Witness No.6. His evidence was recorded at exhibit-78. In the course of his examination in chief, the public prosecutor preferred an application exhibit-79 before the trial court and sought permission to put a leading question to the doctor under section 142 of the Evidence Act in the form of an opinion.

2.2 The public prosecutor sought permission of the trial court to put a question to the doctor seeking his expert opinion which reads as under:

“If the victim is in menstruation and if there is a flow of blood, then due to such flow of blood semen may not be found and no evidence in that regard may be available.”

2.3 The defense counsel raised an objection to such a question being put to the doctor as an expert witness as according to the defense, such question was in the form of a leading question which is otherwise not permissible in law.

2.4 The trial court adjudicated the objection raised by the defense on this count and ultimately passed an order that the public prosecutor may put such a question to the doctor and the reply to the same may also be obtained. The evidentiary value of such reply would be considered at the final stage of the trial.

2.5 Being dissatisfied with such order passed by the trial court, the applicants-original accused have come up with this application.

3. Mr. K.S. Chandrani, the learned advocate appearing for the applicants vehemently submitted that the trial court committed a serious error in passing the impugned order. He submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of sections 137, 141 and 142 of the Evidence Act. He submitted that the public prosecutor can put such a leading question to his own witness only after the witness is declared as hostile. He submitted that the question put by the public prosecutor to the doctor is in such a form that the reply could be either in “yes” or “no”. Mr. Chandrani placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Varke Joseph vs. State of Kerala, 1993 Cri. L. J. 2010. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Chandrani prays that there being merit in this application, the same be considered and the impugned order be quashed.

4. On the other hand, this application is vehemently opposed by Mr. N.J. Shah, the learned APP appearing for the State. Mr. Shah submits that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the trial court in passing the impugned order. Mr. Shah submits that the question asked by the public prosecutor was with a view to seek the opinion of the doctor as an expert witness. He submits that by no stretch of imagination, the question could be termed as “leading”. Mr. Shah lastly submitted that such objection can be taken care of by the trial court while finally appreciating the evidence on record and the trial should not get delayed on account of such objection by the defense. He prays that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that f