LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-569

SAHID Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On February 20, 2014
SAHID Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code') has been preferred for issuance of directions to the police for getting Medical Board constituted from PGI, Rohtak or taking opinion from treating Surgeon/Doctor with regard to injury No. 1 suffered by petitioner Sahib on his head, pertaining to FIR No. 456 dated 15.11.2012 (Annexure P1) under sections 148, 149, 323, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Punhana, District Mewat.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was beaten by respondents No. 2 to 9 and he sustained number of injuries, including head injury as per medico legal report. The doctor opined that injuries No. 2 and 3 were caused with blunt weapon, but injury No. 1 was stated to be the result of sharp weapon caused within six hours of the medical examination. The patient was referred to the General Hospital Mandikhera, for x -ray and further management with the observations 'Neurosurgeon opinion' and from there; he was referred to Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, for better management. He was admitted there and was finally discharged on 14.11.2012. In Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, it was diagnosed that there was 'linear undisplaced fracture of left squamous part of temporal bone'. Thereafter, the petitioner made a complaint to the police on 15.11.2012, on the basis whereof, FIR No. 456 dated 15.11.2012 was registered. It is argued with vehemence that the police in connivance with the accused took an opinion from Dr. Asha on 29.11.2012 in regard to nature of injury No. 1 sustained by the petitioner. The doctor opined in the following terms: -

(3.) COUNSEL has strenuously argued that the police/investigating officer neither got the opinion of Neurosurgeon nor of the treating doctor in Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi in regard to fracture on the left side of skull noticed during CT scan examination of the petitioner. It is further argued that Dr. Asha gave a wrong opinion that possibility is not ruled out that the injury on the left side of skull is an old injury.