P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Petitioner has filed this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the legality and propriety of order dated 22.02.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No.24/2011, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'Act of 1872') for taking on record photostat copy of C.T. Scan Report as secondary evidence.
(2.) In a nutshell, facts of the case are that on 12.05.2010 during treatment, Parcha Bayan of petitioner-complainant was recorded by Police wherein he alleged that in the night of 12.05.2010 at about 4:00 AM, when he along with his father and others was irrigating the agricultural field, accused persons came there and a blow of kassi was given on his head. Upon the said Parcha Bayan, FIR No.84/2010 came to be registered at Police Station Srikaranpur against accused persons including respondent No.2 for offence punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323 and 34 I.P.C. During trial, petitioner moved an application under Section 65 of the Act of 1872 for treating zerox copy of C.T. Scan Report as secondary evidence with the assertion that earlier original C.T. Scan Report could not be placed on record as the same was lying with Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Srikaranpur and was not in his possession.
(3.) Learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 22.02.2017, rejected the application of petitioner observing that neither any doctor had referred for C.T. Scan, nor the Investigating Officer made recommendation for such C.T. Scan, therefore, photostat copies of the documents issued by Radiology Maharaja C.T. Scan Centre are not at all admissible as secondary evidence. The learned trial Court has also observed that the said application is filed only in order to linger on the trial proceedings.;