M L AHUJA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application presumably under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has been preferred by three doctors of Ripon Hospital, Simla, namely Dr. M. L. Ahuja, Radiologist; Dr. J. K. application arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) A case Rama Nand v. State, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, was put for trial before the Sessions Judge, Mandi. A skeleton was discovered from river Sutlej, of which post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. J. K. Sharma. Some components of that skeleton were sent to other doctors for determination of sex and age of the deceased. Dr. R, S. Pathania examined the mandible while the same was put under X-Ray test by Dr. M. L. Ahuja, Radiologist. The reports that arrived were despatched to the Police, and the dates indicated that long after the actual date of examination the documents could be placed in the hands of the Police. The post mortem examination was conducted "in a perfunctory manner". The mandible along with other components of the skeleton were sealed in two packets but these were subsequently broken because the mandible was sent to Dr. M. L. Ahuja and Dr. R. S. Pathania. while the other components were to be sent to Dr. O. P. Bhargava. Subsequently all the components were again put in sealed bundles and these were sent in that condition to Dr. O. P. Bhargava, Professor of Anatomy in the Medical College. Dr. J. K. Sharma being immature in post mortem examination, sought for the assistance of Dr, S. M. L. Grover the Chief Medical Officer, and even wrote down that it was proper for him to conduct the post mortem examination with the assistance of the senior doctor. However, this assistance was not forthcoming and Dr. J. K. Sharma alone performed the post mortem examination. All this led to certain irregularities and even innocent mistakes, with the result that the entire medical evidence was discarded by the High Court. However, on the basis of other circumstantial evidence and taking whatever little assistance the Court could take from the medical evidence, the appeal was decided and a finding of conviction was recorded.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge while recording the finding of conviction, was equally faced with the difficulty regarding medical evidence. He was a little more vociferous than the High Court and made certain sweeping generalisations as to the conduct of the doctors of the Ripon Hospital. Accordingly he has written certain paragraphs in his judgment to which exception has been taken and the present application has been filed for expunction of the remarks against the three doctors.