RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision, the petitioner complainant Rajendra Singh has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 22.08.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Sangariya in Session Case No. 4/2015 whereby the trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the concerned Neurosurgeon, P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner so as to prove the gravity of injuries suffered by the petitioner at the hands of the accused.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order as well as record.

(3.) Learned counsel Dr. Bhansali representing the respondent accused tried to vehemently impress that vide order dated 12.07.2016 passed by learned trial court the earlier application filed by the petitioner with almost same prayer was rejected and thus the second application with the same prayer was not maintainable. Suffice it to say that the said application was dismissed observing that the name of doctor was not mentioned therein application and further application preferred by the victim could not be entertained. Approach of the trial court in rejecting the application on the ground of locus standi cannot be appreciated. In a criminal case, the Court is not supposed to act as mere bystander. If any of the parties fails to bring the evidence essential to unfurl the truth on record, the Court should exercise its powers under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to bring such facts on record. The second application was filed with full particulars of doctors who carried CT Scan examination and treated the petitioner during the course of his hospitalisation. A perusal of the medical documents available on record of the charge-sheet particularly the Medical Jurist's opinion Ex.P-3 clearly indicates that when CT Scan was carried out on the injured complainant, he was found suffering from diffused cerebral edema and contusion of parietal region. He was subjected to craniotomy operation. In this background the trial court should have been vigilant enough and should have suo motu summoned the concerned doctors for proving the reports regarding the gravity of injuries suffered by the injured. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held time and again that the trial court is not supposed to be a mere spectator in the proceedings. The application submitted by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should not have been dismissed on the hyper technical ground that the case was being conducted by the learned P.P. who is miserably failed to perform his duty with diligence because it was incumbent upon him to produce the complete medical record before the Court and prove the same in evidence. The fact regarding the petitioner having been subjected to surgical procedure is apparent from the discharge ticket available on record.