Allahabad High Court
Ram Prasad Chauhan @ Pali Doctor vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3645 of 2021
Revisionist :- Ram Prasad Chauhan @ Pali Doctor
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Udai Shankar Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri U.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vijay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Suresh Bahadur, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
By way of present revision, revisionist made a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 16.12.2021 passed by Additional Session Judge, F.T.C., Court No.1, Mau in Session Trial No. 259 of 2017 (State Vs. Deepak Chauhan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0337 of 2017, under Sections 142, 504, 506, 452, 394, 342, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is an accused facing trial of the present case. He further submitted that the doctor, who conducted the post mortem of the deceased, appeared before the trial court as PW-4 and his statement in respect of cause of death of the deceased is confusing. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that it is stated by the doctor (PW-4) that viscera report of the deceased does not indicate about the homicidal death and it indicates toward suicidal hanging although according to the doctor, who conducted the post mortem i.e. PW-4, the deceased died due to ante mortem strangulation, therefore, to remove this confusion and to arrive at just decision of the case, applicant moved an application before the trial court to seek permission to produce Dr. Surendra Kumar Pandey and Dr. Gaurav Agrawal, Professors of Medicine Department, BHU as defence witnesses, but court below wrongly dismissed his application and thus committed grave error of law as, the testimony of both the doctors were necessary to arrive at just decision of the case as they are Forensic Expert.
Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order as, the doctor, who conducted the post mortem, appeared before the trial court as PW-4 and if there is any confusion in his testimony in respect of cause of death, then revisionist who is accused in the present matter, will be benefited. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submitted that trial is at its last leg and dates are being fixed for final hearing and earlier also revisionist knocked the door of this Court on trivial matters only with intention to linger on trial of the case and as, there is no illegality in the order impugned, therefore, present revision is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
Record of the case shows that post mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Prakash Kumar, who was posted in District Hospital, Mau as Medical Officer and now Dr. Prakash Kumar is posted as Medical Officer in District Hospital, Deoria and he examined before the trial court as PW-4 and his testimony shows that he found ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and according to him deceased died due to ante mortem strangulation but, after that when doctor i.e. PW-4 was again summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C. then, he stated that viscera report of the deceased indicate that deceased may be died due to suicide, therefore, on this issue as per counsel for the revisionist, there is some confusion in view of the statement of the doctor, who conducted the post mortem in respect of the cause of death of the deceased. Perusal of the post mortem clearly suggests that deceased died due to ante mortem strangulation and this opinion did not change by the doctor (PW-4) when he appeared before the trial court and doctor, who conducted the post mortem is the best person to give opinion about the cause of death and other injuries sustained by the deceased. In fact there is no confusion in respect of the cause of death of the deceased because death is clear from post mortem and statement of the doctor that deceased died due to strangulation and if in viscera there is no poison found then it cannot be said that death of the deceased was suicidal death. Therefore, there is no need to call for any other doctor to ascertain the cause of the death of the deceased.
Accordingly, the present application is devoid of merits and hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.7.2022
AK Pandey
