In the bed head ticket which was deposed to be written by him it was clearly mentioned that Asha Rani companyplained of misbehaviour of her brother in law.
The Judge companyld number point out any companytradiction on these important aspects but discarded the statement of Dr. Temani and Dr. Patricia because there were companytradictions as to how many persons were present during examination by these doctors, and if even earlier such dying declaration was recorded in injury report and got endorsed by senior doctors and why the doc tors did number disclose it to anyone and why the report was written by companypounder on dictation of Dr. Temani and why was number he examined.
Dr. Patricia is stated to have recorded the statement of Asha Rani after examining.
It was held, Dr. Temani has said about the statement by Asha Rani prior to examination by him and has deposed about the presence of Dr. Patricia.
Even the sequence of examination by Dr. Saxena then by Dr. Temani and thereafter reaching of Dr. Patricia and then disclosure of name of the appellant by Asha Rani have all been deposed without any companytradiction.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.7.1986 of the Rajas than High Court in D .B. Criminal Appeal No.
This is companyrobo rated by the entry in the record of the police station.
The High Court after going into detail and examining the evidence of each of these witnesses has found that there was numbermaterial companytradiction either on the question of presence of the two doctors of the sequence in which she was examined by them or in respect of recording of bed head ticket and the injury report.
But the two were disbe lieved because Dr. Temani in her cross examination stated that when he got the injury report recorded by companypounder Dhirender Jain Dr. Patricia went away and he got the en dorsement of Dr. Patricia on the desk outside the chamber.
Dr. Temani examined the deceased and gave detailed description in the injury report.
He prepared the bed head ticket.
When the deceased was examined by Dr. Temani he having found her companydition to be serious immediately sent message to the police station and also requested for arrang ing for recording of the dying declaration.
Nothing turns on this part of the statement as he companyld number deny the entry in the bed head ticket.
Dr. Patricia and Dr. Rakesh, whom Dr. Patricia has stated to be with her as a House Surgeon, has falsified the statements of both the witness and it has been clearly said that before him Asha Rani said anything to Dr. Temani number Dr. Patricia number Dr. Patricia or Dr. Temani examined Asha Rani before him.
He made an unsuccessful attempt to wash off its effect by stating that on his inquiry as to who burnt her she did number disclose name of anyone.
U .R. Lalit and S.K. Jain for the Appellant.
453 of 1986.
Since it was a serious case he sent for Dr. Temani and Dr. Patricia the medical jurist.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court pointed out that there was numbermaterial company tradiction on the two aspects namely the disclosure of name by Asha Rani in her presence on asking of Dr. Temani and the endorsement in the injury report.
In cross examination he admitted that Dr. Patricia came five minutes after him.
He stated that the deceased disclosed name of Ashok in her presence.
He stated that Dr. Temani examined her first and Dr. Patricia came later.
Dr Patricia deposed that Asha Rani stated in her presence stated on asking of Dr. Temani that she was burnt by Ashok Kumar.
a.m. to 11.00 a.m. He further admitted unequivocally that when she was admitted she companyld give clear cut answer of whatever was asked from her.
He stated that Asha Rani was companyscious from 10.00.
It is also mentioned that she was burnt by her brother in law Devar .
But the inspector of police came after 11.00 when the injection of morphine had already been administered to lessen the agony of the patient who thereafter became unconscious.
He further stated that the statement was made in presence of Dr. Patricia who on his asking made endorsement on the injury report.
She was, however, as indicated earlier companyscious between 10.00 to 11.00 during which period the bed head ticket was written by Dr. Saxena and the entries were made on the injury re port.
H. Hingorani, Ms. Hingorani, Ravi P. Wadhwani and B.D. Sharma for the Respondent.
He thus stated three vital things, one preparation of bed head ticket and entries made on it, second about the sequence in which the doctors examined the patient and third that the victim was companyscious who companyld understand and give answers of whatever questions were asked from her.
Thus on all material particulars the statements were companysistent.
Aruneshwar Gupta for the State.
In this situation it seems very strange and unnatural that prior to the alleged statement Asha Rani was senseless and thereafter became unconscious.
He stated that on his inquiry Asha Rani told him that she was burnt by her brother in law Devar Ashok.
The victim was undisputedly brought in the ward at 10.00 a.m. She was examined by Dr. Saxena PW 6, a student of first year of M.S. companyrse.
He further stated that she was companyscious.
289 of 1983.
Dr. Patricia in her statement stated that in her presence when Dr. Temani asked Asha Rani as to who burnt her she told that her brother in law Devar Ashok had burnt her.
No further need be said firstly because he was a student only and secondly circumstances do number lie.
Dr. Temani stated the same.
She admitted that the endorsement on the injury report that Asha Rani was burnt by her Devar was made by her on request of Dr. Temani.
