Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44560 (RAJ)

KAMLESH JAIN SON OF SHRI PADAM JAIN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMP/6960/2025 · 2025-11-27

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6960/2025 1. Kamlesh Jain Son Of Shri Padam Jain, Resident Of Talera, Bundi, Rajasthan. 2. Jayesh Jain Son Of Shri Sanjay Jain, Resident Of Talera, Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Suresh Jain Son Of Chhotu Lal, Resident Of Amit Colony, Talera, District Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhanna Ram For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP Mr. Devi Singh-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/11/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a chal- lenge has been led to the impugned order dated 20.05.2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Talera, Bundi by which the appli- cation submitted by the petitioners for conducting another round of re-medical examination of the injured-Chetna from the medical board, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the injured- Chetna has sustained two injuries on her head; one with a sharp edged weapon and another with a blunt object. Counsel submits that the injury No.1 was found to be caused with a sharp edged weapon and the injury No.2 was found to be caused with a blunt (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6960/2025] weapon and the final medical opinion with regard to both the in- juries were kept reserved. Thereafter, the injury No.1 which was sustained with a sharp edged weapon was found to be simple in nature and the injury No.2 which was sustained with a blunt weapon was also found to be simple in nature. Counsel further submits that as per the statement of the witnesses, the accused persons were carrying a Saria i.e. blunt weapon, hence under these circumstances, no injury could have been caused with sharp edged weapon. In spite of that, the medical opinion given by the Doctor with regard to the injury No.1 that was caused with a sharp edged weapon. Counsel also submits that the Doctor had given another opinion at a later stage that the injury No.1 “might be dangerous to life” which is a quite vague and not a specific opinion as to the nature of injury. Hence under these circum- stances, appropriate directions be issued for constitution of a medical board to conduct another round of medical examination of the injured-Chetna. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that looking to the injury report and X-ray report of the injured, an opinion was given by the Doctor that the injury No.1 might be dangerous to life. Counsel submits that the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioners. Hence, interference of this court is not war- ranted. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that when the injured-Chetna was examined by the Doctor at Community Health Centre, Talera, the injury No.1 was found to be caused with a sharp edged weapon and the injury No.2 was found to be caused with a blunt (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6960/2025] weapon/object and opinion with regard to nature of injuries was kept reserved. Subsequently, it was opined by the medical board that no injuries were found to be dangerous to life and both the injuries were found to be simple in nature. It appears that SHO has taken a second opinion from the doctor at a later stage and the Doctor has given the opinion with regard to the injury No.1 that it might be dangerous to life. If at all, opinion has been given by the Doctor that the injuries sustained by the injured-Chetna might be dangerous to life by changing the earlier opinion given by the doctor, the petitioners would be at liberty to take the bene- fit of the situation at the appropriate stage at the trial but for that purpose, it would not be necessary for issuing directions to con- duct another round of medical examination of the injured-Chetna, as wounds might have been healed because the incident pertains to 17.04.2025. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/45