The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that in criminal cases involving bodily injuries, the prosecution must ensure the examination of the radiologist who prepared or interpreted the X-ray or CT scan reports to establish whether an injury qualifies as “grievous” under the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized that when the nature of the injury is dependent on the existence of a fracture or internal bone damage—matters that fall within the expertise of radiological examination—the testimony of a radiologist and the production of the corresponding X-ray plates or scan reports are essential pieces of evidence.
The case arose from a criminal appeal in which the appellant challenged the trial court’s finding that the victim had suffered grievous injuries. The defence argued that the prosecution had failed to examine the radiologist who conducted the X-ray and had also not produced the original X-ray plates before the court. It was contended that the medical officer’s statement, which claimed that a fracture had occurred, was insufficient without corroboration from the radiologist’s expert opinion. The defence maintained that this omission created a gap in the evidentiary chain, making it unsafe to sustain a conviction for an offence involving grievous hurt.
The High Court agreed with the appellant’s contention, observing that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the nature of the injury beyond reasonable doubt. It held that when the alleged injury involves a bone fracture, it becomes imperative for the radiologist who conducted or interpreted the imaging to testify. Merely relying on a general statement from the examining doctor that a fracture existed, without radiological confirmation through expert testimony or production of reports, would be inadequate. The court further noted that the absence of such evidence directly affects the classification of the injury and, consequently, the severity of the offence under Sections 320 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench stressed that the omission to examine the radiologist or produce the X-ray plates cannot be treated as a minor procedural irregularity. It constitutes a material deficiency that undermines the prosecution’s claim of grievous injury. Since the classification of an injury as grievous significantly influences both the charge and the punishment, the court stated that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused when essential medical evidence is missing.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled that establishing the nature of an injury requires comprehensive medical and radiological evidence. The judgment reiterates that a radiologist’s opinion is not a mere formality but an indispensable element of proof in cases where the injury’s seriousness is linked to bone damage. By holding that the prosecution’s failure to produce such evidence weakens its case, the court reinforced the principle that procedural rigor and expert verification are fundamental to fair and accurate adjudication in criminal trials involving bodily harm.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.