Thread by @LiveLawIndia

#SupremeCourt to pronounce order today on the application filed by former IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking the recusal of Justice MR Shah from hearing his case.

#SupremeCourtofIndia #SanjivBhatt

Bench: Application declined.

Sr. Adv. Devadatt Kamat for Bhatt: We sought to place Mr. Narayan Reddy’s opinion on record. The real controversy in this case is whether the death of the deceased (custodial death) was due to a condition called rhabdomyolysis.

Kamat: This person was arrested in 30.10.1990 and granted bail 8 days after. He then goes to a private hospital...10 days after he gets bail he passes away. Thereafter, a complaint is made by the brother that he died because of the beating he received in custody 10 days back.

Kamat: Inquiries are from cutting substance which would take 5 days to heal if there is no other complication. On 1st Nov, 1990 there is no cutting injury. Now, see the report of hospital. Blood urea is unusually high, it is 282. One day prior to death it was 185 .

Kamat: Post mortem report says that there is no evidence of any inquiry and more importantly there is no evidence of rhabdomyolysis that later doctors say.

J. Shah: These documents which are exhibited must have been appriciated by the Trial Court. All these defences were there with you.

Kamat: The problem that I am facing is that the Trial Court accepted my application to summon this person, but gives four hours to bring him. But he is in Hyderabad. Getting him from Hyderabad to Gujarat in four hours....

Kamat: That is the injustice of it. We asked for 2 days times.

J. Shah: Why did you want examine Dr. Reddy?

Kamat: According to us the three witnesses examined by the prosecution all three said that actually there is no complication that leads to his death.

J. Shah: But why did you want to examine him?

Kamat: As an expert.

Kamat: His opinion is that of 2019, before his application for summon was made. This is not a case of death due to rhabdomyolysis.

J. Shah: When were all three doctors examined?

Kamat: Much earlier. I will demonstrate why these three opinions cannot be believed.

Kamat: The High Court has gone in length how I have caused delay and is not required to get into it any further.

J. Shah: To be fair, we often don’t go on length so that no prejudice is caused.

Kamat: Only difficulty is that it is a case of expert opinion; it is your defence. You should have gotten it when the evidence was being recorded, prior to S.313 statement was recorded.

Kamat: This is not a case of rhabdomyolysis. It is a misdygnosis...The clinical doctors did not notice any muscle damage. This is the opinion.

Kamat: Kindly see why I wish to examine him. He was ready to depose, but the Court said get him in four hours. Heaven would not have fallen , as it is said these days.

Kamat: I want to show that there is an opinion of a doctor that the Trial court found to be relevant, called him but....Kindly have a look, I can demonstrate at the face of it.

J. Shah: The Appellate Court is bound to re-appreciate evidence. We are not an Appellate Court, Sir.

Kamat: My effort is to show whether I fall in the limited scope of S. 319 CrPC.

Sr. Adv. Maninder Singh for State: All the three witnesses were crossexamined.

J. Shah: We have noted all that. Permit us to pass order.

Sr Adv Atmaram Nadkarni for complainant: There is an SLP that Dr. Reddy was not allowed, and that is unfair to me. That was dismissed...

J. Shah: That was ground for suspension of sentence.

Nadkarni: Non examination of Dr. Reddy is over now.

Bench: Ld. Counsel appearing for petitioner took us through deposition of three doctors.

Bench: However, it is required to be noted that as per the deposition of the three witnesses considered by the Trial court after they were thoroughly cross-examined and now the deposition is to be considered and re-appreciated by the HC.

Bench; Going through the impugned order of HC we find no reason to interfere with the same. Any observation by this court on the deposition of the aforesaid three witnesses may ultimately affect the appeal which is yet to be considered by the High Court. SLP dismissed.

Bench: However the High Court is to decide the appeal in accordance with law and on re-appreciation of the evidence considered by the Trial Court and without being influenced by the observation made by the HC in the impugned order.