[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.3505 OF 2008 Shri.Vithoba Narayan Sanap and four others ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.D.U.Mirajkar Adv. with Mr.S.C.Joshi, Adv. for Applicants Mrs.A.A.Mane A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants-original accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are facing prosecution in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2005 which is pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Raigad. The said case is mainly under Section 307 of IPC. In the said case, the prosecution examined P.W.9 Dr.Mahajan who was attached to KEM hospital at the relevant time, who treated the injured Digamber at KEM hospital. It is contended that during the [-2-] examination in chief of Dr.Mahajan, the prosecution tried to bring on record Neuropsychology report to suggest that injured Digamber is suffering from speech and cognitive disturbances. The production of the said Neuropsychology report was objected by the defence on the ground that the said Doctor did not prepare the report, he was not present when the said report was prepared nor was the Doctor present while the tests relating to the said Neuropsychology report were carried out. 3. Before the trial Court, it was contended that the opinion of Dr.Mahajan should not be recorded as far as the Neuropsychology report is concerned and the prosecution should not be allowed to ask any question in relation to the said report. The said request was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by observing that Dr.Mahajan is a Medical Practitioner and he can give opinion about the condition of the patient on the basis of report of any other medical practitioner. 4. It is seen that the said Doctor was attached to KEM hospital at the relevant time, hence, he can depose about any record relating to KEM hospital. [-3-] The aspects as to whether Doctor himself prepared the report or was he present when the tests were carried out or was present when the report was prepared, can be brought out by the defence in the cross-examination. Based on the cross-examination, the learned Sessions Judge would obviously determine how much reliance can be placed on the evidence of the said witness as well as the Neuropsychology report. Hence, no fault can be found with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, I find no merit in this application. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]