Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Shah, allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the trial court’s refusal to summon a Radiologist in an assault case. The Court held that the examination of a medical jurist alone cannot suffice to establish the nature of injuries unless the Radiologist, on whose X-ray report the medical opinion is based, is also examined. Stating the necessity of such evidence for a just decision, the Bench directed the trial court to summon and examine the concerned Radiologist and to exhibit the relevant X-rays to accurately determine the extent and nature of the injuries. The impugned order of the Sessions Judge, Pali, was accordingly quashed and set aside.

The petition was filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali, in a criminal case arising from allegations of assault resulting in grievous injuries. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons had inflicted injuries upon the victim using blunt and sharp weapons. During trial, the prosecution examined the medical jurist who had prepared the injury report based on an X-ray report made by a radiologist. However, the radiologist himself was not examined as a witness.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores 498A and Dowry Prohibition Proceedings, Slams High Court for Conducting ‘Mini-Trial’ at Quashing Stage

The prosecution subsequently filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the trial court seeking permission to summon the radiologist, whose X-ray report had been relied upon by the medical jurist for concluding that one of the injuries was grievous in nature. The trial court rejected the application, observing that the prosecution had ample opportunity to produce the witness earlier and that summoning the radiologist at the final stage would delay the proceedings.

Challenging this decision, the State contended before the High Court that examination of the radiologist was essential for the just decision of the case. It was submitted that the radiologist’s evidence would substantiate the medical jurist’s findings and the X-ray report, both of which form an integral part of the prosecution’s evidence regarding the nature and extent of injuries. The State further argued that the trial court’s refusal was contrary to the spirit of Section 311 CrPC, which mandates that the court may summon any person as a witness at any stage if such evidence appears necessary for determining the truth.

The accused opposed the petition, arguing that the prosecution had already closed its evidence and was now attempting to fill in the lacuna in its case after an inordinate delay.

The Court recorded that the medical jurist had deposed that his conclusion regarding the injury being grievous in nature was based on the X-ray report prepared by the radiologist. It stated that “the opinion of the medical jurist is not independent but based upon the X-ray report, which has not been proved by its author.”

The Court observed that the trial court ought to have appreciated that the radiologist’s testimony was essential for the just decision of the case. It stated that “Section 311 CrPC confers wide discretionary power upon the Court to summon any person as a witness at any stage of the inquiry, trial, or other proceeding, if such person’s evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.”

The Court recorded that the purpose of Section 311 CrPC is to ensure that the Court has before it all relevant evidence necessary for arriving at a correct and just conclusion. It stated that “the determinative factor for exercising power under Section 311 CrPC is not whether the prosecution or defence will benefit from such evidence, but whether the evidence is necessary for a just adjudication.”

The Court observed that “if the trial court finds that certain evidence is crucial for clarifying the medical aspect of the case, refusal to summon the witness on the ground of delay would amount to miscarriage of justice.” It further stated that “technicalities should not override the requirement of truth and fair trial.”

The Bench recorded that the Sessions Judge had erred in treating the application as an attempt to fill a lacuna, as the radiologist’s evidence was not an afterthought but a necessary step to authenticate the basis of the medical opinion already on record. It stated that “a fair trial requires not only that the accused gets an opportunity to defend, but also that the prosecution is allowed to present all relevant evidence within the bounds of law.”

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Orders 20K Monthly Salary Deduction From Widow Appointed On Compassionate Grounds For Deserting Dependent In-Laws

The Court concluded that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly by rejecting the prosecution’s application and that such evidence was indispensable for determining the correctness of the injury report.

The Court set aside the order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali. It directed that “the trial court shall summon the radiologist who prepared the X-ray report of the injured witness and record his statement in accordance with law. The accused shall be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. The trial court shall make all necessary arrangements to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.” The petition was allowed accordingly, with the impugned order quashed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinayak Mathur, Additional Government Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Chandu Singh, Advocate

Case Title: X v. State of Rajasthan
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD: 40104
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 375/2025
Bench: Justice Sandeep Shah