Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) - These three instant miscellaneous petitions have been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.) Ditngarpur in Sessions Case No. 57/2010 whereby whilst deciding the Sessions Case No. 57/2010 the learned trial Court has passed some strictures and has issued a direction/recommendation for taking disciplinary action against the petitioners.
(2.) The learned trial Judge has made following 7 observations against S.H.O. Gulab Singh, 14 observations against the petitioner Dr. B.P. Verma and 13 observations against the I.O. Sobaran Singh in the order impugned: Gulab Singh, PW-11 S.H.O. P.S. Sadar Dungarpur Following facts and circumstances unveil his connivance. with the complainant of this case and unveil his character as a member of the criminal conspiracy hatched amongst himself the Investigating Officer PW-9 Sobaran Singh, the Medical Jurist, Dungarpur PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma and the complainant of this case PW-1 Mohd. Hanif. 1. The S.H.O. P.S. Sadar, PW-11 Gulab Singh visited the General Hospital Dungarpur in preplanned manner, as no roznamcha report showing the receipt of information regarding assault on complainant and his consequential admission in the hospital has been filed on the file of this case. 2. He deliberately without any basis stated in the application Ex.P-10 submitted to Medical Jurist PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma for preparing of the injury report of complainant, stated the false fact that complainant is admitted in the Orthopaedics ward of the hospital, as no such treatment record showing the admission of complainant in that ward was procured and placed on the file of the case either by him or even by the Investigating Officer PW-9 Sobaran Singh. 3. He himself sought for the treatment record from the Medical Jurist M.B. Hospital, Udaipur through application dated 21.7.2010 but later on abandoned his own demand for no good reason or reason best known to him alone and to my mind solely being influenced by the extraneous consideration made available by the complainant. 4. He decided to add the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 325 of the I.P.C., without perusing the treatment record of either hospital and also without availability of the CT scan films and X-ray report. 5. He without taking holistic view of the investigation conducted by PW-9 Sobaran Singh, straightway made the request of cancellation of bail granted to the accused- vide letter No. 2672 dated 30.7.2010 and also raised objection against the grant of bail to the accused vide letter No. 2670 dated 30.7.2010 and also moved an application before the Sessions Court, Dungarpur as mentioned in letter No. 2670 dated 30.7.2010 for no good reason or reasons best known to him alone and to my mind solely being influenced by the extraneous consideration made available by the complainant. 6. He while acting as the S.H.O. of the Police Station, deliberately ignored the material infirmities left by the Investigating Officer PW-9 Sobaran Singh as discussed in the foregoing part of this judgment, whereas he. was bound to take note of it being the S.H.O. of the police station and as such responsible for all the affairs of the police station as envisaged under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 7. He without taking reasonable notice of the inherent and implicit improbability of the story narrated in the written report Ex.P-1 decided to draw and forward the charge sheet for offences of the serious nature which has resulted into severe harassment, and curtailment of the life and liberty of the accused guaranteed under ]s 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Dr. B.P. Verma, PW-7 Medical Jurist Following facts and circumstances unveil his connivance with the complainant of this case and unveil his character as a member of the criminal conspiracy hatched amongst himself, the S.H.O. PW-11 Gulab Singh, the Investigating Officer PW-9 Sobaran Singh and the complainant of this case PW-1 Mohd. Hanif: 1. He did not confirm by going through the treatment record of the General Hospital Dungarpur that whether the complainant is admitted in the hospital or not. 2. He while preparing the injury report did not peruse the treatment record to know the clinical observations of the treating doctor, without which no opinion could have been formed by any doctor simply working as a Medical Jurist, without an expertise in the field of any specialised branch. 3. He himself mentioned the fact on the injury report itself to the effect that the patient is referred to the High Center, whereas a patient is invariably referred to other center by the treating doctor alone and it is non of the business of the Medical Jurist to refer the patient to any other or higher center, thereby causing unwarranted interference in the independent working of the treating doctor, the independence of whom is the most significant factor for the effective and proper treatment of the patient. 4. He did not insist for X-rays to be done in the Dungarpur hospital before alleged reference to the higher center. 5. He directly received the CT scan report Ex.P-11, requisition for X-ray Ex.P-12 and X-ray films Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17 from the complainant PW-1 Mohd. Hanif. 6. He did not inquire about the presence of complainant from 15.7.2011 to 18.7.2011. 7. He did not insist for production of treatment record of any of the hospitals before giving his opinion regarding nature of the injuries. 8. He did not examine the complainant at the time of giving his opinion, so as to know his current health condition. 9. He did not take notice of the crucial fact, that complainant having sustained injuries of such a serious nature, which were according to himself in the nature of three fractures on both forearms as well as on left leg and also one of them on the parietal region was even dangerous to life, could not have come himself to him with the CT scan report and X-ray requisition and X-ray films all alone just after three days duration since he allegedly sustained that injuries. 10. He while relying on the CT scan report Ex.P-11, X-ray requisition Ex.P-12 and X-ray films Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17, did not call for and peruse the CT scan films and X-ray report, before giving his opinion regarding nature of the injuries allegedly caused to the complainant. 11. He relied upon the forged CT scan report Ex.P-11 without seeking for the production of CT scan films, upon which the CT scan report Ex.P-11 was based. 12. He relied upon the forged X-ray requisition Ex.P-12 without taking note of the fact that there was significant difference regarding age and identification mark of the complainant in the injury report Ex.P-2 and requisition for X-ray Ex.P-12. 13. He relied upon the forged X-ray films Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17 without considering the fact that on these films there was no mention of the name of the hospital or the diagnosis centre at which these were supposed to be carried out. 14. He did not consider the important aspect that there was no injury report prepared in any hospital at Udaipur, nor any opinion was given by any of the said hospital regarding nature of the injuries allegedly caused to the complainant. Sobaran Singh, PW-9, Investigating Officer Following facts and circumstances unveil his connivance with the complainant of this case and unveil his character as a member of the criminal conspiracy hatched amongst himself, the S.II.O. PW-11 Gulab Singh, the Medical Jurist, Dungarpur PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma and the complainant of this case PW-1 Mohd. Hanif: 1. He did not verify the fact that whether complainant was admitted to and referred from the General Hospital Dungarpur or not by collecting the registration card and other relevant treatment record pertaining to the complainant. 2. He did not visit any of the hospitals as Udaipur to verify the fact that whether complainant was admitted and treated there or not. 3. Pie did not collect the treatment papers from any of the hospitals at Udaipur to verify the fact of treatment anywhere at Udaipur. 4. He did not examine any of the treating doctors of any of the hospital either at Dungarpur or at Udaipur. 5. He did not object to the receiving of the CT scan report Ex.P-11 and X-ray requisition Ex.P-12 as well as the X-ray plates Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17 by the Medical Jurist PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma directly from the complainant. 6. He did not insist and call for the complainant for production of the X-ray report pertaining to the requisition for X-ray Ex.P-12 and X-ray films Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17 and also for CT scan films pertaining to the CT scan report Ex.P-11. 7. He did not examine the complainant afresh after receiving aforesaid documents despite knowing it fully well that just after 3 days of sustaining injuries of great magnitude the complainant himself has provide these documents to PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma and despite the glaring feature that no one can generally come up from the sufferings of serious injuries of such a nature and become able to walk all around on his own. 8. He did not examine the Medical Jurist of M.B. Hospital, Udaipur who allegedly prepared and signed the X-ray requisition Ex.P-12. 9. He did not examine the radiologist of M.B. Hospital, Udaipur, who allegedly took the X-ray films Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17. 10. He did not examine Dr. Sunil Miglani, who had been show to have conducted CT scan of complainant and prepared arid signed the CT scan report Ex.P-11. 11. He did not mention on Ex.P-11,12 and Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-17 the fact that from whom he received those documents apparently with a view to hide it from the Court that he received the same directly from PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma. 12. He did believe the story narrated in the written report Ex.P-1, which was ex facie improbable, insofar as it was not possible at all that the complainant could have been allowed to run away up to the distance of 2-2.5 km along the road without use of any vehicle by the accused, who were chasing him on the motorcycle. 13. He recorded the false statements of other witnesses on his own to make out a case in conformity to the case narrated in written report Ex.P-1, without taking holistic view of the matter in its entirety.
(3.) He has held that Gulab Singh conspired with the complainant of the case and hatched conspiracy with the Investigating Officer PW-9 Sobaran Singh, PW-7 Dr. B.P. Verma and PW-1 Mohd. Hanif to give undue benefit to the complainant.;