1. The present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the applicants-original accused to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17/09/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jam-Khambaliya below exh. 62 in Sessions Case No. 49/2010 permitting the advocate for the applicants-original accused to put certain questions to the Doctor with regard to the mental condition of the deceased.
2. The applicants-original accused are facing the trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 401 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, one Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar, who has done the postmortem and prepared the inquest panchnama, came to be examined by the prosecution as P.W. 7. His examination-in-chief was recorded and thereafter the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants-original accused cross-examined him. During the cross examination of the said Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar, P.W. 7, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants-original accused wanted to ask certain questions with regard to the mental condition of the deceased, soundness of mind, depression etc. and, therefore, an application, Exh. 62 was submitted permitting the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants-original accused to ask certain questions with regard to the mental condition of the deceased etc. to Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar, P.W. 7 and by impugned order the learned trial Court has rejected the said application and has refused to grant permission to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants-original accused to ask questions to the Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar with regard to the mental condition of the deceased etc. by observing that Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar, P.W. 7 has been examined only with a view to prove the postmortem report and the inquest panchnama and the said Dr. has not given treatment to the deceased and, therefore, such questions with regard to the mental condition of the deceased etc. cannot be asked to the said Dr.. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court passed below Exh. 62 in Sessions Case No. 49/2010 the applicants-original accused have preferred the present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Shri Anandjiwala,learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants-original accused has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the application submitted by the applicants-original accused permitting the advocate to ask certain questions with regard to the mental condition of the deceased, depression, soundness of mind etc.. It is submitted that by not permitting the applicants-original accused to put certain questions, grave prejudice would be caused to their case and their defense would be spoiled. It is submitted that as such since last seven months, deceased was staying separately from the applicants- original accused at her parental home and it is submitted that marking of lines and figures on palmer aspect would clearly reflect her mental condition and it becomes clear that she must be suffering from some mental ailment or she must have become the victim of depression and, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have permitted the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants-original accused to ask certain questions with respect to the mental condition of the deceased. It is submitted that merely because the Dr. is MBBS is no ground to show that he is absolute ignorant about such medical science and, therefore, it is requested to allow the present Criminal Revision Application.
4. The present Criminal Revision Application is opposed by Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. It is submitted that as such the questions, which were sought to be asked to the Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar are absolute irrelevant questions so far as P.W. 7 is concerned. It is submitted that as such the Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar, P.W. 7 only performed the postmortem and prepared the inquest panchnama and he never treated the deceased. He was examined only to prove the postmortem and the inquest panchnama and, therefore, such questions with regard to the mental condition of the deceased and/or whether she was under depression being asked to the Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar, P.W. 7 are absolutely irrelevant and, therefore, it is submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed an error and/or illegality in rejecting the application, Exh. 62 by not permitting the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants to put such irrelevant questions to the Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar, P.W. 7.
5. Heard Shri Anandjiwala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants-original accused and Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court below Exh. 62 rejecting the application submitted by the applicants-original accused permitting them to put certain questions with regard to the mental condition/depression of the deceased to the Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar, P.W. 7, who performed the postmortem and prepared the inquest panchnama. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such P.W. 7, Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar only performed the postmortem and prepared the inquest panchnama and nothing further than that. Admittedly, the said Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar has not treated and/or given the treatment to the deceased at any point of time even at the time of the death of the deceased-victim and, therefore, as such the questions, which were sought to be asked to the Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar, P.W. 7, who performed the postmortem and prepared the inquest panchnama with regard to the mental condition of the deceased or depression are absolutely irrelevant questions so far as P.W. 7, Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar is concerned. Under the circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in rejecting the application, Exh. 62 and not permitting the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants-original accused to ask questions to the Dr. Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Parmar with regard to the mental condition/depression of the deceased. Under the circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in rejecting the application, Exh. 62, which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, there is no substance in the present application, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji