Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Rajasthan High Court: While considering a petition challenging the order passed by the Magistrate by which petitioner’s request to form a specialised Medical Board to independently re-examine the injuries, alleging undue political influence over the previous report, was declined, a Single Judge Bench of Farjand Ali, J., held that the preservation of fairness and justice necessitated that the injuries of the victims should be re-examined by an independent Medical Board.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition and stated that the entire process, from the constitution of the Medical Board to the final report, should be completed expeditiously within 7 days.
Background
In the case at hand, there were criminal proceedings against the petitioner based on allegations of involvement in a manufactured and fabricated criminal enterprise.
The petitioner contended that the charges were rooted in a malicious narrative constructed not by credible evidence but through undue political influence exerted by the complainant. It was asserted that such undue influence led to the creation of a doctored and exaggerated medico-legal report intended to falsely amplify the gravity of the alleged offence.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a plea before the Superintendent of Police (SP) requesting the formation of a specialised Medical Board to independently re-examine the injuries sustained by the two victims. The request was made on the assertion that the initial medical report had been tainted by undue influence, and that re-examination was necessary to ascertain the authenticity and gravity of the injuries in a transparent manner.
The SP, after consideration, forwarded the requisition to the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMO) with the expectation that the examination would be conducted by a competent Medical Board. However, the CMO declined the request on the ground that the SP lacked the legal competence to issue such directives.
Thereafter, the petitioner went before the judicial officer, seeking recognition of the need for an independent medical evaluation. The Magistrate declined to issue directions for the constitution of a Medical Board. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking intervention on the ground of perceived injustice.
Analysis and Decision
The Court viewed that the allegations, which questioned the veracity of the medical evidence, could not be brushed aside lightly. “If, indeed, there is a genuine concern about the falsification of medical reports, it falls squarely within the purview of a thorough and impartial investigation.” Further, the Court stated that the technicalities surrounding the nature and severity of the injuries required expert opinion, and the formation of a Medical Board would serve as a critical mechanism for ensuring that justice was dispensed without prejudice.
The Court observed that the re-examination of the victims by a qualified Medical Board would serve a dual purpose as it would provide an opportunity to validate the existing medico-legal reports which would ensure that the evidence presented was not tainted by manipulation and if the Medical Board identified discrepancies in the earlier reports, it would be imperative to correct them, as the integrity of the case depends heavily on the authenticity of the medical evidence.
The Court emphasised that it was not just a mere procedural formality but a substantive measure to safeguard the accused from being unfairly prosecuted based on misleading or fabricated evidence. The Court stressed that “the interests of justice do not lie solely with the prosecution or the accused, but in the overarching pursuit of truth”.
The Court stated that in the present case, facilitating the formation of a Medical Board would ensure that the true nature of the injuries was discerned, which would not only clarify the accused’s position but also provide the prosecution with a foundation rooted in factual accuracy. The Court held that the Magistrate erred in declining the petitioner’s application as considering the gravity of allegations, it deemed necessary to intervene in the interests of justice.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition at hand and set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM). The Court directed the District Magistrate/Collector to immediately constitute a Medical Board consisting of three qualified doctors in collaboration with the CMO, Principal Medical Officer (PMO) of the Government Hospital concerned.
The Court stated that the Medical Board should comprise a surgeon and two other experienced medical officers who would be tasked with conducting a thorough and independent re-examination of the injuries sustained by the victims. Further, the Court directed the SP to ensure all necessary arrangements to be made for the protection of the victims during their examination before the Board, which would include ensuring their safe transport and security during the medical evaluation.
The Court further stated that the Medical Board should prepare a comprehensive report of its findings, and if any contradictions were to be found in the earlier medico-legal reports, those should be explicitly noted and included in the final report. The report should be forwarded to the SP so that he can include the same in the case diary and take appropriate action to further investigate the matter based on fresh findings.
The Court stated that the entire process was to be completed expeditiously within 7 days as any undue delay in the examination of the victims’ injuries could result in the deterioration of the medical evidence, thus hampering the truth-seeking process. Thus, “it is of utmost importance that the Medical Board is constituted immediately, and the examination is carried out promptly to prevent any loss of critical evidence”.
The Court further emphasised that “the preservation of fairness and justice necessitates that the injuries of the victims be re-examined by an independent Medical Board.”
[Ajeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 2113, decided on 18-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mudit Nagpal, Advocate
For the Respondent: N.S. Chandawat, Dy. G. A.
