Vijay Kumar Shukla, J
1. The present revision is filed under section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by VIII ASJ &
Special Judge (O.A.W.), Indore in S.T.No. 478/2018 whereby the court below has dismissed the petitioner's application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for
re-examination of material witnesses i.e. Dr. Rajni Joshi (PW-1), Dr. Vaidhya Prakash (PW-6) and Dr. Ashok Thakur (PW-7) to prove the contents
of their medial reports.
2. It is argued that the statement of aforesaid medical witnesses do not clearly describe the injuries suffered by the petitioner whereas it was
necessary for the prosecution to get the statements of the said medical witnesses carefully and they have not described the injuries suffered by the
petitioner. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nahadariya Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 1980 JabLJ 501 and also the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey (Criminal Appeal
No. 447/1998) dated 29.4.1992.
3. Counsel for the respondent/State supports the order impugned and submits that trial court has rightly rejected the application under section 311
Cr.P.C..
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the testimony of Dr. Rajni Joshi(PW-1), Dr. Vaidhya Prakash (PW-6) and Dr.
Ashok Thakur (PW-7), it is manifest that they have described the nature of the injuries and also stated that the aforesaid reports were signed by them.
Since the reports submitted by the Doctors have been admitted and therefore, the defence will not get any benefit because of non-description of
injuries. Once the medical report is exhibited through Doctor, contents of the aforesaid documents are deemed to be admitted. The defence would not
get any benefit because the Exhibits are admitted by the Medical Officers.
In view of aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed.
