JUDGMENT The petitioner Dr. Bhabha has been charge sheeted for committing an offence u/s 201 IPC for having given an opinion in the post mortem examination report about deceased Mithilabai that she died as a result of shock and haemorrhage resulting from bum injuries. She had 90% burnt. The post mortem examination shows that the cause of death was due to shock and bum. This report is signed by 2 doctors, by Dr. Bhabha the present petitioner and Dr. G.K. Singhania who is not an accused. It appears to be joint autopsy by them. The prosecution case is that accused Radhabai and Arun Kumar caused the death of Mithilabai on 9.11.82 by strangulation in pursuance of their common intention and burnt the body. The al1egation is that the autopsy report 11.11.82 is deliberately false to protect the accused; The prosecution sent the report about al1 the circumstances revealed in the case from evidence collected including the photographs to Director of Medical Institute, Govt. of M.P. for expert opinion. They gave their report on the basis of police history, marg intimatiqn, copy of panchnama, copy of post mortem report, quarries raised by the investigating officer, map of the spot, photographs and negatives, sealed packet containing clothings. This expert opinion suggests that the pattern of bums are against suicidal bums as there was no movement in the body as the back buttocks are safe and the direction of soot also confirmed that the deceased was lying down and burning. The direction of soot was at right angle to the body's long axis. It was noted that there was no soot in the trachea and ante mortem bums were not recorded in the blood, suggesting that during the burns the victim was not breathing. The absence of burns in groins and axilla also suggests that there was no movement during the bums. So the opinion was that the bums were post mortem and death could be by any other means than the bums and the victim did not move during the bums. So it was a case of homicidal death with attempt to camaflouage with bums. The accidential burns were ruled out. Due to this opinion which was contrary to the opinion of the autopsy/Surgeon, the prosecution implicated both the autopsy surgeons as accused in the case who gave wrong opinion to screen the other accused persons. So it was a case of homicidal death with attempt to camaflouage with bums. The accidential burns were ruled out. Due to this opinion which was contrary to the opinion of the autopsy/Surgeon, the prosecution implicated both the autopsy surgeons as accused in the case who gave wrong opinion to screen the other accused persons. On perusal of the record this Court finds that the charges u/s 201 IPC were framed only against Dr. Bhabha. It appears that Dr. Singhania is an absconder. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the autopsy surgeon had noticed CCP in the larin and trachea, of course membrain was brownish. It is argued that the word 'CCP' against the coloumn of larin and trachea had been misread by the expert. This presence of carbon particles in the larin would suggest breathing during burning resulting inhalting carbon particles. It is also argued that the opinion could not be said to be unjustified and the doctors had to be given chance to prove their opinion as expert. Merely because another opinion had come on record it could not be said that the earlier opinion was deliberately false to screen the offender. In any case the trial Court would be free to take action for offence u/s 193 IPC for giving false evidence, if the evidence of post mortem report given by the petitioner is found false. After considering the material on record this Court is of the view that although it could be established that the autopsy report was false, it could be established by the better opinion, But for that reason at the initial stage it will be difficult to say which of the reports could be preferable in the eyes of law or before the Court in a properly conducted trial while the witnesses will appear and will be cross-examined. Ordinarily the report of the autopsy surgeon is entitled to its weight. The Court has to assess its weight and truth and if contrary opinion comes from another expert, the Court has to see if any deliberate falsehood is made. The witness who states falsely can certainly be hauled up and punished for giving false evidence. The chance of these doctors appearing in the witness box to prove the autopsy report has been taken away by the methodology of impleading them as accused persons u/s 201 IPC. This is unfair. The witness who states falsely can certainly be hauled up and punished for giving false evidence. The chance of these doctors appearing in the witness box to prove the autopsy report has been taken away by the methodology of impleading them as accused persons u/s 201 IPC. This is unfair. Merely because another opinion had come from another expert or a team of experts it would not mean that the earlier expert should be implicated for offence u/s 201 IPC. It is not opined by subsequent expert as to what was the mode of killing except saying that the bums were post mortem. It is no doubt that the 2 opinions are contrary but the best course is that the trial Court should watch their varacity at the trial when these experts appear as witnesses. For these reasons this Court is of the view that trial Court was not justified in framing charge u/s 201 IPC against the petitioner. His petition is accepted, and he is discharged. However it is directed that he will be examined as a witness and if the trial Court finds in the final judgment that he gave false evidence it will be free to take appropriate action at that stage.