AMAR SARAN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer that another Medical Board be constituted either in dis ­trict Allahabad or in any other district ex ­cept Kaushambi for medical examination of the injured informant Smt. Savita Devi, the petitioner, on the ground that the report of the Medical Board headed by the CMO, Kaushambi dated 20.10.2008 had arrived at a wholly erroneous conclusion that the head injury on Savita Devi was not a fire ­arm injury, but that it was self -inflicted. The petitioner has also prayed for any other relief which this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2.) ALTHOUGH the prayer made in the writ petition was unusual, however on no ­ticing that the radiologist's report showed that there were two small rounded opaque shadows of metallic density over the skull vault on the frontal bone of the skull, and as the members of the Medical Board had themselves noted that there was a scar mark of the size 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm over the scalp on the frontal bone and a small hard object was palpable, which was moveable in all directions and was subcutaneous, an earlier Bench consisting of one of us, Amar Saran J. and R.N. Mishra J. began to enter ­tain some doubt about the reliability of the opinion given by the Medical Board and directed by an order dated 9.2.2009 that the case be listed on 17.2.2008. On that date we required the presence of the investigating officer with the case diary. However, on 17.2.2009 when the investigating officer appeared, it was ar ­gued by the learned Additional Govern ­ment Advocate, without filing any counter affidavit or document to that effect, that as the investigating officer had informed him that he had already submitted a charge -sheet against the accused only under sec ­tions 323/504 and 506 IPC, hence there was no occasion for this Court to pass an order constituting another Medical Board at that stage and it was open to the complainant -petitioner to raise all her objections against the said opinion of the Board during trial as well as to cross -examine the concerned doctors.
(3.) AS the petitioner's case was that the incident had taken place at 8.00 AM on 1.7.2008 when the accused Banwari Lal and others had arrived at her door variously armed with gun, country -made pistol and bomb and started erecting a wall there, which could have blocked the passage of the complainant and her family members, they had objected, whereupon the accused persons hurled a bomb and resorted to fir ­ing. The fire by Bhukhan struck her head. The informant's brother -in -law (Devar) Rajesh and Ram Prakash were also injured and that in order to escape, the informant and others had to rush inside her house and to lock the door.;