After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.
The appellant attempted to question the order so passed by the Trial Court before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
An FIR bearing No.
Against the order aforesaid, the appellant filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur while companytending, inter alia, that Dr. I. Yusuf was a material witness in the case and the prosecution had illegally omitted to cite him as a witness.
The first post mortem of the dead body of the appellants daughter was companyducted by Dr. I.Yusuf in Aminu Kanu Teaching Hospital, Nigeria on 16.01.2010 who, upon examination, stated his opinion that the cause of death was asphyxia secondary to strangulation.
The prosecution case is that the deceased daughter of the appellant was married to the accused respondent No.
However, the petition was dismissed by the High Court by way of its impugned order dated 02.08.2018 while observing that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the Trial Court called for numberinterference.
As numbericed, in its impugned order dated 31.05.2018, the Trial Court rejected the said application while observing that the matter was pending since the year 2010 and, as the photocopy of the post mortem report prepared in Nigeria was available on record, it was number necessary to record the statement of Dr. I. Yusuf.
In the trial, the prosecution led its evidence and various witnesses were examined but as the members of the Board were unable to give any definite opinion as to the cause of death, an application under Section 311 CrPC was moved by the appellant, for issuance of summons to the said Dr. I. Yusuf, Department of Pathology, Aminu Kanu Teaching Hospital, Nigeria, who had first companyducted the post mortem of the dead body of the appellants daughter in Nigeria, so that he may be examined as a medical witness.
Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.
10 of 2010 was lodged at Police Station Rajaldesar, District Churu by the husband of appellant father of the deceased , alleging, inter alia, that his daughter was harassed with persistent demands for dowry and she was subjected to cruelty to the extent that it ultimately led to her death in Nigeria.
Thereafter, the dead body of the appellants daughter was brought to India where a Medical Board was companystituted for further post mortem but the Medical Board stated that numberdefinite opinion companyld be formed regarding the time and cause of death of the daughter of the appellant.
2 in Nigeria, died under unnatural circumstances when she was found hanging from the ceiling fan in her room.
It is alleged that on 14.01.2010, the appellants daughter, while living with her husband the accused respondent No.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Leave granted.
The background aspects, so far relevant for the present purpose, companyld be numbericed, in brief, as follows 3.1.
By its order dated 31.05.2018, the Trial Court rejected the application so moved by the appellant, essentially for reasons that the trial was pending for almost 8 years and that it was number necessary to record the statement of Dr. I. Yusuf because a companyy of the post mortem report prepared by him had already been exhibited.
2 on 21.04.2008 at Rajaldesar she was residing in her matrimonial home alongwith father and mother of her husband and later on she had shifted to Bangalore and then to Nigeria with her husband but was regularly harassed with demand for dowry.
However, the High Court dismissed the said petition by its impugned order dated 02.08.2018 with the observation that there was numberreason to interfere in the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court.
2282 of 2018.
