Full Judgment Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
2007:BHC-AS:15128
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1211 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 1211 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 1211 OF 2006
Dr.Satishkumar Yeshwant Sarode ...Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar with Mr.A.R. Joshi for the
Petitioner.
Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP for State.
CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : AUGUST 14, 2007 DATED : AUGUST 14, 2007 DATED : AUGUST 14, 2007
P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :-
. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and
the learned APP for the State.
2. Rule. Respondent waives service. Rule is made
returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.
3. The petitioner was attached to a Primary Health
Centre, Lonand, District Satara. He was examined as a
prosecution witness in Sessions Case No.43/2003. The
Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, District Pune, by
his judgment in the said Sessions case came to the
conclusion that the petitioner has given false evidence
and therefore, issued Show Cause Notice against him
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:11 :::
- 2 -
under Section 344 of the RC.P.C.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid
notice has filed this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The brief facts are that the
petitioner was working as a Medical Officer in the
Primary Health Centre, Lonand, Tal.Khandala, District
Satara. A dead body was received by the hospital on
11th October, 2002 by 8.00 p.m. and he had to perform
autopsy on the dead body of Dattatraya Bapu Pawar.
After having performed the port mortem examination, the
petitioner noted his observation in which he has stated
that there were three CLW wounds on the head which
observation was recorded in clause 19. He had also
stated in the said notes that the cause of death was due
to intra-cranial haemorrhage as a result of the head
injury. A chargehseet was filed by the police and the
case was committed to the Sessions Court. The
petitioner was examined as a prosecution witness. The
petitioner supported the prosecution case and after
narrating the injuries recorded by him in the post
mortem report, he gave his opinion that the injuries on
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:11 :::
- 3 -
the head was sufficient to cause death and also stated
that the injuries which were caused by the sickle which
was showed to him. In his cross-examination, he stated
that the injuries would be caused by the hard and blunt
object. The prosecution did not declare the petitioner
as a hostile witness since he had supported the
prosecution case. The prosecution had also examined one
other Medical Practitioner, Dr.Sanjay Sadashiv Shivade.
This doctor performed the operation on the deceased who
also gave his opinion that the injury could be caused by
sickle. The said Dr.Shivade, however, stated in his
evidence that the injuries were incised wounds. The
trial Court convicted the accused by its order dated
13th December, 2005. However, in para 7 and 17 of the
said judgment, the learned Judge came to a conclusion
that the petitioner had fabricated and had given false
evidence with ulterior motive of helping the accused and
therefore, issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner being a doctor has given his expert
opinion after having performed the post mortem. He
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:11 :::
- 4 -
submitted that it is possible that the opinion given by
two Doctors may slightly vary but it cannot be said by
any stretch of imagination that by giving the said
opinion, the Doctor has fabricated or has given false
evidence.
6. The submission made by the learned Counsel for
the petitioner will have to be accepted. I have perused
the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. In
the present case, two experts have given their opinion
in respect of the injuries which were caused on the
person of the deceased. Both the Doctors have stated
that the injuries could have been caused by a sickle.
While performing the port mortem, the petitioner has
opined that these injuries are in the nature of CLW
whereas the Doctor who performed the operation on the
deceased while he was still alive has given an opinion
that there were incised wounds. It is an admitted
position that other injuries were caused on the skull.
It is possible that the injuries may appear to be CLW
and on closure inspection while performing an operation
considering the depth of the wound, it might appear to
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:11 :::
- 5 -
be an incised wound. Thus, both the Doctors had in fact
supported the prosecution case and that there was no
occasion for the learned Sessions Judge to have come to
the conclusion that the petitioner had given false
evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner was not declared
as a hostile witness. He was not even cross-examined by
the prosecution. In my view, the Show Cause Notice
which is issued by the Sessions Judge, was to say the
least, unwarranted and uncalled for.
7. The Show Cause Notice, therefore, is set aside.
The petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(a).
(V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:11 :::
2007:BHC-AS:15128
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1211 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 1211 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 1211 OF 2006
Dr.Satishkumar Yeshwant Sarode ...Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar with Mr.A.R. Joshi for the
Petitioner.
Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP for State.
CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : AUGUST 14, 2007 DATED : AUGUST 14, 2007 DATED : AUGUST 14, 2007
P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :-
. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and
the learned APP for the State.
2. Rule. Respondent waives service. Rule is made
returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.
3. The petitioner was attached to a Primary Health
Centre, Lonand, District Satara. He was examined as a
prosecution witness in Sessions Case No.43/2003. The
Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, District Pune, by
his judgment in the said Sessions case came to the
conclusion that the petitioner has given false evidence
and therefore, issued Show Cause Notice against him
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:11 :::
- 2 -
under Section 344 of the RC.P.C.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid
notice has filed this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The brief facts are that the
petitioner was working as a Medical Officer in the
Primary Health Centre, Lonand, Tal.Khandala, District
Satara. A dead body was received by the hospital on
11th October, 2002 by 8.00 p.m. and he had to perform
autopsy on the dead body of Dattatraya Bapu Pawar.
After having performed the port mortem examination, the
petitioner noted his observation in which he has stated
that there were three CLW wounds on the head which
observation was recorded in clause 19. He had also
stated in the said notes that the cause of death was due
to intra-cranial haemorrhage as a result of the head
injury. A chargehseet was filed by the police and the
case was committed to the Sessions Court. The
petitioner was examined as a prosecution witness. The
petitioner supported the prosecution case and after
narrating the injuries recorded by him in the post
mortem report, he gave his opinion that the injuries on
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:11 :::
- 3 -
the head was sufficient to cause death and also stated
that the injuries which were caused by the sickle which
was showed to him. In his cross-examination, he stated
that the injuries would be caused by the hard and blunt
object. The prosecution did not declare the petitioner
as a hostile witness since he had supported the
prosecution case. The prosecution had also examined one
other Medical Practitioner, Dr.Sanjay Sadashiv Shivade.
This doctor performed the operation on the deceased who
also gave his opinion that the injury could be caused by
sickle. The said Dr.Shivade, however, stated in his
evidence that the injuries were incised wounds. The
trial Court convicted the accused by its order dated
13th December, 2005. However, in para 7 and 17 of the
said judgment, the learned Judge came to a conclusion
that the petitioner had fabricated and had given false
evidence with ulterior motive of helping the accused and
therefore, issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner being a doctor has given his expert
opinion after having performed the post mortem. He
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:11 :::
- 4 -
submitted that it is possible that the opinion given by
two Doctors may slightly vary but it cannot be said by
any stretch of imagination that by giving the said
opinion, the Doctor has fabricated or has given false
evidence.
6. The submission made by the learned Counsel for
the petitioner will have to be accepted. I have perused
the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. In
the present case, two experts have given their opinion
in respect of the injuries which were caused on the
person of the deceased. Both the Doctors have stated
that the injuries could have been caused by a sickle.
While performing the port mortem, the petitioner has
opined that these injuries are in the nature of CLW
whereas the Doctor who performed the operation on the
deceased while he was still alive has given an opinion
that there were incised wounds. It is an admitted
position that other injuries were caused on the skull.
It is possible that the injuries may appear to be CLW
and on closure inspection while performing an operation
considering the depth of the wound, it might appear to
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:11 :::
- 5 -
be an incised wound. Thus, both the Doctors had in fact
supported the prosecution case and that there was no
occasion for the learned Sessions Judge to have come to
the conclusion that the petitioner had given false
evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner was not declared
as a hostile witness. He was not even cross-examined by
the prosecution. In my view, the Show Cause Notice
which is issued by the Sessions Judge, was to say the
least, unwarranted and uncalled for.
7. The Show Cause Notice, therefore, is set aside.
The petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(a).
(V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:11 :::