KHAJASAB SULEIMAN PULUJKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) By this petition, petitioners, who are accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No.182 of 2013 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 507 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code are challenging order dated 16th August 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Sangli, thereby rejecting the application at Exhibit 74. By this application, petitioners/accused had prayed for issuing summons to Dr.D.C.Patil or his representative for adducing evidence. That application came to be rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to evidence of the First Informant/PW6 and argued that as this witness had claimed that her father-in-law had committed rape on her on and often and that on such dates she was getting herself examined by Dr.D.C.Patil, the defence wants to bring on record the mental condition of the alleged victim of rape by examining Dr.D.C.Patil. The learned counsel further argued that conduct of the alleged victim is also required to be brought on record as after the alleged incidents of rape on her, by her father-in-law, she was visiting the hospital of Dr.D.C.Patil, but was not disclosing the events which were taking place in her matrimonial life, to this family Doctor. In that view of the matter, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, for just decision of the case, evidence of Dr.D.C.Patil is necessary. My attention is drawn to the cross-examination of the First Informant/ PW6 wherein she had denied even prescription dated 21st October 2012 issued by Dr.D.C.Patil after examining her.