Doctor’s Opinion Based on Unexamined Radiology Report Is Insufficient to Establish Grievous Hurt: Rajasthan High Court

“The examination of the 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.” – Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur affirming that the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to summon a material witness “at any stage” of trial is not fettered by technicalities of delay, and can be exercised to secure the ends of justice.

The Court quashed the Sessions Judge’s earlier order dated 12.03.2025 that had dismissed the Public Prosecutor’s application to summon the Radiologist who prepared the X-ray report, which formed the basis of a medical opinion on grievous injuries.

The case arose from an FIR No. 277/2022 lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Pali, based on a violent altercation that occurred on 22.07.2022, allegedly involving multiple accused who attacked three individuals—Mohammed Haider, Illmuddin, and Mohammed Samsuddin—with swords, pipes, iron rods, and lathis. Multiple head and body injuries were reported, and prosecution claimed grievous hurt based on injury reports and X-ray findings.

A charge-sheet was filed, charges were framed, and the trial proceeded with the examination of 19 witnesses. Among them, Dr. Amit Kumawat (PW-15), who authored the injury report, admitted that his medical opinion was based on the X-ray report prepared by the Radiologist Dr. Son Singh. However, Dr. Singh was not examined as a witness.

Post the defence evidence and recording of statements under Section 313 CrPC, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking to summon the Radiologist to substantiate the medical opinion. The Trial Court rejected the application citing delay and held that the examination of the Radiologist was not necessary.

The central issue was whether the Radiologist’s examination was indispensable to prove the injuries as “grievous” under Sections 325, 326, or 307 IPC, and whether the power under Section 311 CrPC could be invoked at a belated stage of trial.

The High Court, presided by Justice Sandeep Shah, emphatically held:

“Calling a witness or re-examining a witness for the purpose of finding out the truth in order to enable the Court to arrive at a just decision cannot be said to be filling the lacuna.”

Justice Shah emphasized that Section 311 empowers the Court to summon any person “at any stage” of inquiry or trial if their evidence appears “essential to the just decision of the case.” Citing Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013) 14 SCC 461, the Court reiterated that justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of procedural technicality.

“Fairness of a trial is sacrosanct as far as our judicial system is concerned.”

X-ray Report Not Proved Without Radiologist

The Court noted that PW-15 Dr. Amit Kumawat had explicitly stated that his opinion was based on the Radiologist’s X-ray report, but the Radiologist was neither summoned nor his report exhibited. The absence of such crucial testimony could jeopardize the legal classification of the injuries.

Justice Shah drew support from a host of precedents across various High Courts and the Supreme Court, including:

Dholiya v. State of Rajasthan (2013 SCC OnLine Raj 2142): Radiologist and X-ray plates must be produced to establish grievous injury under Section 320 IPC.

Vunnam Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine AP 2186): Non-examination of the Radiologist was fatal to conviction under Section 326 IPC.

Akula Raghuram v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) 4 SCC 209: Non-examination of Radiologist renders ossification test result unreliable in determining age.

Soma v. State of Rajasthan (2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2016): Conviction under Section 307 IPC not sustainable without X-ray being proved via Radiologist.

The Court highlighted:

“In case the Radiologist is not examined, then the same will lead to miscarriage of justice as the nature of injuries would not be proved.”

Trial Court Erred in Dismissing Section 311 Application

The High Court condemned the Trial Court’s dismissal of the application merely on the ground of delay and relying on unrelated judgments. Justice Shah observed:

“The rejection of the application simply on the ground that it has been filed at a belated stage, is not at all justified.”

“Even if the witness is examined, the accused will get an opportunity to cross-examine him. Further, the trial would not be delayed as only a single witness is to be examined.”

The Court also dismissed the respondent's plea of prejudice, stating that no specific prejudice was shown.

Allowing the revision petition, the High Court set aside the order dated 12.03.2025 and directed:

“The learned Trial Court is directed to summon and examine Dr. Son Singh, Radiologist at the earliest and also give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the witness. The learned Trial Court shall proceed to adjudicate the matter at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order.”

This judgment reinforces that substantive justice must prevail over procedural convenience. The ruling reiterates the judiciary’s proactive role in ensuring fair trials, especially when technical evidence like medical opinions are foundational to determining the gravity of offences under serious penal provisions like Section 307 IPC.

Date of Decision: 08 September 2025