DIWANSINGH Vs. CHHOTELAL DANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge Vidisha in ST No.8/2011, whereby an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling Dr. A.K. Shrivastava and confronting him with his query report in regard to nature and place of injury sustained by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact Dr. A.K. Shrivastava was sent a request to point out about the nature and extent of the injury caused to Diwan Singh and Gabbar Singh. In reply to such inquiry, Dr. A.K. Shrivastava on 31.03.2005 had categorically pointed out that the injuries which were caused to Diwan Singh S/o Panna Lal and Gabbar Singh S/o Diwan Singh were on the head and vital body part. Doctor had further given opinion that such injuries were caused by hard and sharp object and further the injury caused to Diwan Singh on his head was life threatening in the general nature of the injury and was en-dangerous to life. It is submitted that the complainant, who is the petitioner before this court, is assisting the prosecution after taking due permission but the prosecution counsel had not confronted Dr. A.K. Shrivastasva with his report dated 31.03.2005 and therefore he prays for direction to the trial court to permit the petitioner to recall the witness Dr. A.K. Shrivastava and subject him to appropriate cross-examination.

(3.) Learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application to recall Dr. A.K. Shrivastava on the ground that the query report of Dr. A.K. Shrivastava contains certain points and evidence has also been delivered on those aspects while he had deposed as P.W.10 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Sessions Court. It is true that when Dr. A.K. Shrivastava had appeared before the court at that time the injured persons had not tried to get the query report exhibited nor asked any question in relation to the query report and when the matter has reached to the stage of final hearing, then an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been filed and such application is not maintainable.