Doctor's Opinion Based On X-Ray Report Insufficient In Grievous Injury/ Attempt To Murder Case, Must Examine Radiologist: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court has held that examination of only the medical jurist is not sufficient to determine the nature of injury without examination of the Radiologist based on whose X-ray reports the medical jurist had given evidence.

The bench of Justice Sandeep Shah held that in such a situation, the concerned radiologist was required to be examined and the X-rays were also be required to be exhibited for determining the actual nature of injury.

“…examination of Radiologist is essential when the offence alleged is under Sections 326 and 307 IPC as it is only post his examination that the details of the X-ray and the nature of injury, based upon the X-ray can be brought on record.”

The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed against the order of the trial court by which the application filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 311, CrPC was rejected on the ground of being filed belatedly.

Section 311, CrPC, lays down the power of the court to summon material witnesses or examine the person present.

In the cross-examination of the doctor who had opined the nature of injuries inflicted by the accused as grievous and dangerous, it was admitted that this opinion was based on the X-ray report prepared by the radiologist. Hence, an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 311, CrPC to summon and examine the radiologist regarding the nature of injury.

This application was rejected by the trial court on the ground of being filed belatedly and based on an opinion that examination of the radiologist was not necessary to prove the nature of injury.

It was the case of the petitioner that rejection of the application simply based on it being filed at a belated stage was not justified since the court was required to consider whether summoning of the witness was necessary and essential for a just decision. It was submitted that no such consideration was made by the trial court.

After hearing the contentions and perusing multiple precedents in relation to Section 311, CrPC, the Court firstly opined that it was a settled law that application under the provision can be filed and considered at any stage to come to a just decision. Hence, ground of delay in filing such application could not be sustained.

Furthermore, the Court also rejected the argument that examination of the radiologist was not required. It was held that since the medical jurist had given his opinion on the nature of injury based on the X-ray report of the radiologist, non-examination of the latter would lead to miscarriage of justice since the nature of injuries would not be proved.

The Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Soma v State of Rajasthan in which it was held that examination of the radiologist and exhibiting of X-ray was must to prove the offences of causing grievous hurt or attempt to murder. Further reference was made to the case of Akula Raghuram v State of Andhra Pradesh in which it was held that non-examination of the radiologist and not exhibiting his report puts the prosecution case in serious peril.

In this light, it was held that for determining nature of injury, examining medical jurist was not sufficient, and the radiologist, on whose reports the medical jurist relied upon, also had to be examined and the X-ray report was required to be exhibited.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to summon and examine the radiologist at the earliest.

Title: Ishtiyaq Ahmed v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 367

For Petitoner(s): Mr. Naman Mohnot

For Respondent(s): Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP; Mr. Omprakash Choudhary; Mr. Puma Ram for Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit

Click Here To Read/Download Order