JUDGMENT :

[Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.]

1. This criminal revision has been instituted by the revisionist to set aside the order dated 31st May, 2022 passed by A.S.J-VI, Mathura in S.T. No. 433 of 2012 (Smt. Suman Vs. Krishna Murari & Ors.) under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Vrindaban, District Mathura, by which the Trial Court has rejected the application 136-B by the informant under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

2. In brief facts of the case are that the aforementioned Sessions Trial is pending in the Court of A.S.J-VI, Mathura, in which the informant moved an application 136-B that injured Rajan Lal was examined on 03rd July, 2009 in Swarna Jayanti Community Hospital. Medical report 4-A/17 is on record, he was examined by Dr. Ajai Gopal, during the medical examination Mild Subarachnoid Hemorrhage was found on the head and he was carried out in unconscious position/stage to the hospital therefore the statement of concerned doctor is necessary. Hence, Dr. Ajai Gopal be summoned as witness. The concerned I.O. has not arrayed him as witness, therefore Dr. Ajai Gopal be summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the accused had vehemently opposed the application and had stated that this file is under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 01.01.2014 and is being delayed intentionally. The injury of Rajan Lal is simple in nature and the statement of Dr. Ajai Gopal has not been recorded by the concerned I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

4. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has rejected the application on the ground that the injuries alleged to be caused to the injured are said to be simple in nature. The learned A.D.G.C has objected the summoning of the said witness in such a situation when the statement of the victim has been made and the trial relates to Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C, therefore calling or not calling of the aforesaid doctor would have not special effect on the prosecution. It is also clarified that this sessions trial is connected with another cross case, which is under the action plan laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, which has to be decided expeditiously, therefore, the application is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

5. It has also been concluded by the trial court that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C has been opposed by the learned ADGC (Criminal) what evidence the prosecution wants to present in the court, it is the responsibility of the prosecution. It is not necessary that if the investigator has not taken the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, a person cannot be summoned but in this case, the prosecution itself is opposing it. The advocate appointed by the informant can assist the prosecution, but they can not act as prosecution officer. The learned trial court has referred the judgment Rekha Murakka Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. J.T 2019 (11) S.C 291, in which it has been held that the learned counsel for the victim//informant plays only a secondary role in advancing the prosecution case.

6. Being aggrieved the revisionist has filed the present revision.

7. In the application, the applicant has taken ground that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind by wrongly interpreting the judgement of Rekha Murakka (supra) and thus rejected the legal and genuine claim of the revisionist.

8. Dr. Ajai Gopal is the sole witness, who has medically examined the injured Rajan Lal on 03rd July, 2009 in Swarna Jayanti Community Hospital and has given opinion in which he has contended that the injury cannot be seen due to plaster and referred the injured to District Hospital, Mathura for x-ray about the opinion regarding injury no. 1. In this incident, Rajan and Sunder Lal, two persons had sustained grievous injury and both were examined by Dr. Ajai Gopal, therefore his deposition is more important for conclusion of the case.

9. Since, the learned trial court is also adjudicating the cross version, therefore, it is duty of the trial court to scrutinize