JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This revision application challenges the order dtd. 08/09/2021, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Panaji, whereby an application (Exh.43) filed by the applicant (Original accused) for
examining a Doctor as defence witness has been rejected.
(2.)Although this application is listed for consideration for the first time, since an advance copy was served, the learned Public
Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State.
(3.)In the present case, the applicant is facing trial in Sessions Case No.56 of 2016, for offences under Ss. 504, 353 and 333
of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings before the Trial Court
reached the stage where the statement of the applicant was recorded
under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Thereafter, the applicant moved the aforesaid application at Exhibit43, which has been rejected. According to the Sessions Court, an
expert i.e. a Doctor has been already examined by the prosecution
who has answered a particular question specifically and on this basis,
the Court has held that the applicant cannot be permitted to
examine another Doctor in his defence, as the contentions sought to
be raised on behalf of the applicant would lead to hypothetical
questions to be put to the proposed witnesses and that no purpose
would be served by calling the Doctors for being examined in the
defence of the applicant.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.