The judgment involves a criminal case where the petitioner's father and others are accused of a murderous assault. The victim passed away, leading to the addition of section 302, P.P.C. in the FIR. The petitioner challenges the DSMB's opinion on his injuries, alleging political influence and bias. The petitioner seeks re-examination by the PSMB.

Contentions: The petitioner argues political influence on the DSMB and challenges its opinion, claiming it contradicts medical jurisprudence. The state vehemently opposes the petition, emphasizing the DSMB's credibility. Respondent No.5 argues against PSMB referral, citing the age of the incident.

Legal Framework: The judgment emphasizes the critical role of medical science in justice administration. It outlines the Police Rules for medico-legal cases and highlights the three-tier structure involving DSMB and PSMB. Relevant health department instructions and legal provisions, including Article 59 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, are cited.

Importance of Reasons: The judgment underscores the importance of recording detailed reasons for medical opinions, emphasizing fairness and the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution. It cites instructions requiring explicit reasons for deeming injuries as fake.

Examination of Petitioner's Injuries: The petitioner's initial examination and DSMB's re-examination are detailed. DSMB's unanimous opinion contradicts firearm involvement based on clothing examination, X-rays, and injury characteristics.

Court's Analysis: The court rejects vague allegations of political influence and ill-will against DSMB due to lack of specifics. It criticizes DSMB's opinion for deficiencies, emphasizing the need to clarify the relevance of clothing to firearm use and absence of suggestions regarding fabrication.

Legal References: The judgment cites legal provisions from Police Rules, Health Department instructions, and Article 59 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. It refers to cases like State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal and State of Haryana v. Bhagirath to establish the admissibility and advisory nature of expert opinions.

Order: In light of the conflicting versions and deficiencies in DSMB's opinion, the court orders the re-examination of the petitioner by the PSMB to uncover the truth, avoiding expression of opinion on the timeliness of the referral.

Conclusion: The judgment, balancing legal provisions and fairness principles, allows the petitioner's plea for PSMB re-examination, emphasizing the pursuit of truth in the inquiry and trial process.


#criminallaw #medicalboard #dsmb #psmb #magistrate #judgement #victim #injured #lawyer #law #fyp ‪@Qanoondan‬ ‪@courtingthelaw3531‬ ‪@_FinologyLegal‬ ‪@_FinologyLegal‬ ‪@LegalEagle‬