PANCH LAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.S. Shukla and Sri Laxmi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Devesh Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Akhilesh Singh, Government Advocate, assisted by Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA.

(2.) While arguing the present bail application, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the Radiologist report dated 13.5.2013, the age of the prosecutrix is between 16 to 19 years on the basis of ossification test conducted by the said Radiologist. Dr. R.L. Gupta, Radoilogist, M.L.N.Colvin Allahabad, a photocopy which has been annexed as Annexure-6 at page-27 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

(3.) It further transpires that the Supplementary Medico Legal Report of the prosecutrix was also prepared by Dr. Sweta Yadav, Medical Officer of District Women Hospital on 15.5.2013, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. In the report, it was endorsed by the said Medical Officer that the radiological age is between 16 to 19 years and further has made endorsement that final age to be given by the C.M.O. office if the Hon'ble Court desires. The report which was submitted by Dr. R.L.Gupta, Radiologist, appears to be a vague one and there was no further report of t he C.M.O., Allahabad with respect to the exact age of the prosecutrix. Hence, this Court vide order dated 30.8.2013 summoned the C.M.O., Allahaad along with Dr.R.L.Gupta, Radiologist, to explain about the radiologist report prepared by the Dr. Gupta fixing 3.9.2013 for their appearance before this Court.