Rajat vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

This revision has been preferred by the revisionist, who is an accused in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 2017, State v. Rajat, which is pending consideration before the FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO, Haridwar for trying of an offence under Section 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act.

An FIR was registered on 25th April 2017, for the said offence by the complainant, who is the mother of the victim Usha, whereby the present revisionist has been named as an accused person for commission of an offence under Section 376 IPC.

The trial commenced and at the trial stage, an application was filed under Section 311, which was numbered as paper number 51 (kha) by virtue of which in compliance of the unchallenged Hon'ble High Court's order dated 12th June 2017, in order to examine the medical report of 14th June 2017, as submitted by the District Government Hospital's Doctor Smt. Meeta and other documents which were examined by the trial Court, they wanted Doctor Meeta to be summoned in order to substantiate her medical report, which she has submitted earlier.

The said application paper number 51 (kha) was opposed by the present revisionist by filing an objection paper number 57 (kha) and he has submitted that summoning of Dr. Meeta would be nothing but an abuse of process for the reason that the trial has already matured and most of the witnesses have been examined and the medical report, as submitted by Dr. Meeta subsequent to the commissioning of the said offence has already been examined.

The apprehension which has been expressed by the revisionist is that in case if the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed, its consequential effects would be that it would further complicate the proceedings and the parties would be called upon afresh to be examined or to cross examine Dr. Meeta and further he submits that there was no necessity to summon Dr. Meeta for the reason that the medical report was submitted by Dr. Meeta on 14th June 2017.

The learned Sessions Court, after considering the objection taken by the revisionist to the application under Section 311, it has contended by him that during the pendency of the proceedings when the main evidences was going on there was no necessity for re-examining the victim medically, nor there is any assertion made as such in the pleadings.

The learned Sessions Court, after considering the objection had allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. vide its order dated 28th February, 2019, and has consequently summoned Dr. Meeta in order to substantiate the medical, which has been conducted by her on 14th June, 2017. Since the order dated 28th February 2019, is nothing but in a consequence of compliance of judgement/direction issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 12th June, 2017 and even otherwise also by summoning Dr. Meeta, she is called upon to the medical report dated 25th April 2017, which was conducted upon the victim by Dr. Nisha.

After having gone through the order, this Court does not find any illegality if Dr. Meeta is summoned in order to substantiate the medical report dated 25th April 2017, as it would be nothing but a step for an effective adjudication of the proceedings of the trial which is pending before the Court below.

Since this revision lacks merit, it is accordingly dismissed.