Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Alias Reeta vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 2024
2024:PHHC:048673
CRM-M-14247-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(127) CRM-M-14247-2024
Date of Decision:-09.04.2024
Sunita @ Reeta
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab.
****
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-7)
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar whereby the
evidence of the petitioner was closed and the application under Section
311Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecution witness namely Sunita@Reeta for
the purpose of producing the attested documents of medical treatment of the
deceased obtained from PGI, Chandigarh had been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that
the said impugned order dated 01.11.2022 (Annexure P-10) was challenged
by filing a revision, however, the Revisional Court vide impugned order
2024:PHHC:048673
CRM-M-14247-2024
dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure P-11) disposed of the revision by holding that
the revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order and, hence,
the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Averting to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the deceased, who was inflicted with injuries was
referred to PGI, Chandigarh and later on succumbed to it, however, the
Doctor who treated the deceased at PGI, Chandigarh did not come present
before the trial Court to depose as a witness. He also raises allegations that
the Investigating Officer did not join any of the medical staff nor took any
other relevant documents from PGI, Chandigarh and this loophole in the
investigation could be fatal to the prosecution case and the victims
endeavour to seek justice. He also submits that as per the provisions of
Section 311 Cr.P.C., an application can be moved at any stage before the
judgment is pronounced so as to bring out the truth. The said documents
would be important for demonstrating the pain and agony suffered by the
deceased before he succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. Learned
counsel for the petitioner also submits that the learned trial Court fell in
error by disallowing the application on the ground that the petitioner is not
a specialized person in the field of medicine. The counsel submits that the
documents so sought to be produced in the evidence are duly attested by
PGI, Chandigarh and in case, there is any difficulty in understanding the
medical record, it would be open to the Court to seek the testimony of a
competent Doctor from PGI, Chandigarh, and merely the fact that the
Doctor who treated the deceased did not come present for his testimony
2024:PHHC:048673
CRM-M-14247-2024
cannot be taken as a ground to disallow the application moved by the
petitioner.
4. Learned State counsel submits that the application is only to
delay the trial and the petitioner is not a specialized person who could
comment upon the veracity of the medical report as she is not a expert in
the field of medicine.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Seeking a detailed reply will only procrastinate the trial which
is pending since 2017.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Zahira
Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors. has held that the
determinative factor to decide an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is
that whether it would be essential to the just decision of the case.
8. In light of the peculiar facts and circumstances and the settled
proposition of law which enables the Court to recall, examine or re-
examine any witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for proper dispensation of
justice, the order dated 01.11.2022 (Annexure P-10) warrants modifications
by this Court.
9. In light of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a
direction to trial Court to grant the petitioner two effective opportunities to
file the documents obtained by her under RTI Act from PGI, Chandigarh
and before the trial Court and it shall be open to the trial Court to summon
the Doctor from PGI, Chandigarh for his testimony, if so required. In case,
the concerned Doctor who had treated the deceased is not available then
2024:PHHC:048673
CRM-M-14247-2024
any other Doctor who could explain the medical report be summoned for
his testimony.
10. In light of the above, the present petition is disposed of.
(ALOK JAIN)
09.04.2024 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
