STATE OF BIHAR Vs. TRIPTI SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . While hearing Cr. Misc. No. 35391 of 2008, in respect of prayer for bail of an accused in Patliputra P.S. Case No. 131 of 2008, the court could confront a situation which indicated definite manipulations in the medical report.

(2.) The court, during hearing of the petition, perused one of the annexed documents in its photo stat copy form, at running page 23 of the brief, which was a report of the radiologist and that had a photograph, also in photo stat copy form and that indicated as if the report related to a child. On contrasting the said radiological report and the photograph with the opinion, finally rendered by Dr. Tripti Sinha, respondent herein, the court was struck by the most important feature of the report under which the child had been reported below 14 years of age. The court had an opinion that the report was wrong and manipulated, probably created, so as to rendering benefit to the petitioner in the above noted Cr. Misc. petition in getting an order of bail in his favour and as such, the court was of the opinion that the act besides being an act of contempt, on account of meant to influencing the judgment of the court, was also an act which could be an offence committed by a public servant during discharge of his/her public duty in recording a report which could be utilized in a judicial proceeding and as such, directed issuance of notice to the respondent for her appearance, calling upon her to show her causes as to why the matter should not be referred for hearing for the act of contempt, prima facie, appearing committed by her as also for filing a complaint against her. The respondent has appeared. She has filed her show cause and she has stated, inter alia, that the child was examined by a board of doctors consisting of two other members also and after assessing the child and examining her, she was sent to the radiologist for her radiological examinations and for obtaining his opinion. Accordingly, the radiologist made a report which is Annexure - C to the show cause filed by the respondent and which was also an annexure as indicated in main Cr. Misc. petition and the radiologist after radiological examinations, furnished many opinions as regards the age of the victim and being influenced by that and in absence of the two members of the board of doctors, the respondent made the report on 11.7.2008 because the investigating agency was pressing hard upon the respondent to furnish the report. Many other facts have been stated in the show cause which are dependent upon radiological report of the victim, as may appear from paragraph 8 of the show cause and the respondent has submitted that it could be merely an opinion dependent upon the opinion of the radiologist and it could not be said to be an act intentionally done so as to influencing the result in a particular proceeding pending before the court.

(3.) IT has been submitted by citing a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jaimala V/s. State of J & K, that while considering the age of a person, one must take judicial notice of the margin of error in age ascertaining by radiological examination which is two years on either sides. It was contended by referring to some parts of the text of Modi 'sMedico Legal Jurisprudence, specially page No. 282 to 285 of the text that the height of the child as also the number of teeth which a child could be having, could also be an indicator as to what could be the age of the child and there could be some error in assessment of the age also. Many other arguments appear made in the show cause on the radiological and other physiological aspects of assessing the age of a person and an attempt was made that the opinion that the victim was below 14 years of age, may not be an intentional act or an act which could be impinging upon the conduct of the respondent regarding the commission of an offence by her.