Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14862

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
SANDEEP SHAH
ISHTIYAQ AHMED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLR / 375 / 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Naman Mohnot
For the Respondents: Narendra Gehlot, Omprakash Choudhary, Puma Ram, Ramdev Rajpurohit

A court has the discretionary power to summon witnesses at any stage of a trial to ensure a just decision. When a medical diagnosis of grievous injury relies on radiographic reports, the examination of the radiologist is essential to properly establish the nature of the injury in evidence.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 311 - Power to summon material witness - Scope - Power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined at any stage of trial if essential for just decision of the case.

(B) Evidence - Expert testimony - Proof of nature of injury - When medical expert opinion is based on radiographic report, examination of radiologist is essential to substantiate claim of grievous injury - Failure to examine radiologist renders nature of injury unproven in cases requiring proof of fracture or specific injury classifications. (Paras 10, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order of the trial court which dismissed an application filed under the relevant criminal procedure code. The prosecution had sought to summon a radiologist to testify regarding X-ray reports used by a medical officer to opine that the injuries sustained by the victims were grievous in nature. The trial court rejected the application, citing a delayed filing and claiming the radiologist's examination was redundant, which led the petitioner to file this revision petition.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the trial judge failed to properly exercise discretionary powers aimed at ensuring a fair and just trial. The appellate court found that the expert testimony regarding the nature of the injuries was derived entirely from the radiographic report, which remained unproved as the author of the report had not been examined. The court emphasized that the objective of the trial is the discovery of truth, and in cases of serious charges, it is necessary to bring the best available evidence on record.

Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court acted erroneously in rejecting an application to summon a witness at a late stage of the proceedings, and whether the testimony of a radiologist is mandatory to establish the nature of injuries as grievous when the primary medical opinion is based on radiographic evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the judicial power to summon witnesses is vast and must be exercised to prevent the failure of justice. It concluded that when a medical jurist's finding regarding the severity of an injury is premised on a radiographic report, the examination of the radiologist is a prerequisite to establishing the evidentiary value of that report, thereby ensuring a just and accurate verdict.

Result: Revision petition allowed; order of the trial court set aside; trial court directed to summon the witness and proceed with the matter.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Court considered whether an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed belatedly can be allowed to summon a Radiologist to prove the nature of injury and X-ray evidence. (!) (!) - It held that Section 311 Cr.P.C. permits summoning/recalling witnesses at any stage if essential to the just decision of the case, with guidelines from Rajaram Prasad Yadav and Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh on necessity and fair trial. (!) (!) - The revision was allowed to summon Dr. Son Singh (Radiologist) to examine PW-20 and to consider X-ray evidence to determine the nature of injuries, with directions to ensure cross-examination and timely adjudication. (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Order

REPORTABLE

1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant challenging the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned Session Judge, Pali, District Pali, in Session Case No.243/2023 (State of Rajasthan v. Mohammed Imran & Ors.), whereby the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. Succinct facts of the case are that, based upon a report submitted by the petitioner-complainant- Ishtiyaq Ahmed, an FIR, bearing No.277/2022, came to be lodged at Police Station, Kotwali, District Pali on 23.07.2022. In the FIR, it was asserted by the petitioner-complainant that he, along with his family-members were residing in a joint family in Bhishtiyo Ki Gali area, wherein Mohammed Hussain, also used to reside. It was asserted that on 22.07.2022 in the evening, at around 07:30 P.M., there was a verbal altercation between the children, upon which, Mohammed Haider, younger brother of the petitioner-complainant had requested Mohammed Hussain and Mohammed Saleem to settle the dispute between the children, so that they may not undertake the verbal altercation.

2.1 He further submitted that after some time, Mohammed Haider, along with Illmuddin and Mohammed Samsuddin were having a talk and suddenly Mohammed Hussain with sword in his hand, Aslam with pipe in his hand, Mohammed Saleem with Dhariya in his hand, Mohammed Ferman with a pipe in his hand, Nek Mohammed with a sword in his hand and Mohammed Imran with a lathi in his hand came upon the site and started assaulting all three persons namely Mohammed Haider, Illmuddin and Mohammed Samsuddin. It was further submitted that Mohammed Hussain caused injury on the head of Mohammed Haider with the sword, Mohammed Aslam also inflicted a head injury on Mohammed Haider with the pipe and Mohammed Saleem also inflicted injury on the parietal region of Mohammed Haider’s head with the Dhariya. Nek Mohammed caused injury on the face of Illmuddin with the sword and Mohammed Ferman also caused injury on the hand of Illmuddin with an iron rod. Rest all i.e. Bablu son of Mohammed Aslam and Imran son of Nek Mohammed, were having Lathi and they hit Mohammed Samsuddin on his head with the Lathi. It was submitted that thereafter, the neighbours and the other residents of the colony came upon the site and intervened to end the scuffle.

2.2 Based upon the FIR so lodged, the Police Officials started investigation and the injury reports of Mohammed Samsuddin, Illmuddin and Mohammed Haider were prepared and even X-ray Report was also prepared, based upon which, the Doctor gave the opinion with regard to the nature of injuries. Post that, the charge-sheet was filed and after committal of case, the charges were framed and the learned trial Court, thereafter proceeded with the trial.

2.3 In total, 19 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and, out of the 19 witnesses, PW-15 was the Doctor i.e., Dr. Amit Kumawat, who was the author of the injury report and also the person, who had given the opinion with regard to the nature of injuries. During the course of his examination-in-chief itself, he admitted that he gave his opinion, based upon the X-ray report.

2.4 The above-mentioned fact was further fortified in his cross examination, wherein, he admitted that he had not prepared the X-ray report and further admitted that he gave his opinion, based upon the X-ray and the report of the Radiologist, with regard to the nature of injury. Post examination of 19 witnesses, the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded, and thereafter, the learned Public Prosecutor filed an application dated 12.03.2025, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., praying therein that the Doctor had opined with regard to the nature of injury, being grievous and dangerous, based upon the X-ray report, however, the Radiologist was not examined, although X-ray reports were part of record and in case, the Radiologist was not e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document