AMAR SARAN, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that another Medical Board be constituted either in dis trict Allahabad or in any other district ex cept Kaushambi for medical examination of the injured informant Smt. Savita Devi, the petitioner, on the ground that the report of the Medical Board headed by the CMO, Kaushambi dated 20. 10. 2008 had arrived at a wholly erroneous conclusion that the head injury on Savita Devi was not a fire arm injury, but that it was self-inflicted. The petitioner has also prayed for any other relief which this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Although the prayer made in the writ petition was unusual, however on no ticing that the radiologists report showed that there were two small rounded opaque shadows of metallic density over the skull vault on the frontal bone of the skull, and as the members of the Medical Board had themselves noted that there was a scar mark of the size 1. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm over the scalp on the frontal bone and a small hard object was palpable, which was moveable in all directions and was subcutaneous, an earlier Bench consisting of one of us, Amar Saran J. and R. N. Mishra J. began to enter tain some doubt about the reliability of the opinion given by the Medical Board and directed by an order dated 9. 2. 2009 that the case be listed on 17. 2. 2008. On that date we required the presence of the investigating officer with the case diary. 3. However, on 17. 2. 2009 when the investigating officer appeared, it was ar gued by the learned Additional Govern ment Advocate, without filing any counter affidavit or document to that effect, that as the investigating officer had informed him that he had already submitted a charge-sheet against the accused only under sec tions 323/504 and 506 IPC, hence there was no occasion for this Court to pass an order constituting another Medical Board at that stage and it was open to the complainant-petitioner to raise all her objections against the said opinion of the Board during trial as well as to cross-examine the concerned doctors. 4. As the petitioners case was that the incident had taken place at 8. 00 AM on 1. 7. 4. As the petitioners case was that the incident had taken place at 8. 00 AM on 1. 7. 2008 when the accused Banwari Lal and others had arrived at her door variously armed with gun, country-made pistol and bomb and started erecting a wall there, which could have blocked the passage of the complainant and her family members, they had objected, whereupon the accused persons hurled a bomb and resorted to fir ing. The fire by Bhukhan struck her head. The informants brother-in-law (Devar) Rajesh and Ram Prakash were also injured and that in order to escape, the informant and others had to rush inside her house and to lock the door. 5. It was further alleged by the complainant-petitioner that the police minimised the incident and only lodged a non-cognizable report under sections 323/504 IPC which merely mentioned that the accused persons had resorted to abuses and used lathi and danda in die assault, which were plied by both sides resulting in the head injury to Savita Devi. In these cir cumstances Savita Devi was constrained to move an application on 8. 7. 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi under section 155 (2) Cr. P. C which mentioned inter alia that the S. O. of the police station Sarai Aqil had even threatened to send her jail on a fabricated case, when she had gone to lodge the report on 2. 7. 2008. However, on her insistence the S. O. concerned had orally lodged an NCR, (although it was incorrect) and got her medical examination done on 2. 7. 2008, by the medical officer, CHC Sarainkil, Kaushambi. The medical report showed a lacerated wound 1. 5 cm x 3 cm x skin on her head, 11 cm from the right ear, but no blackening and tattooing was found, and X-ray of the skull was advised. Dr. A. N. Rastogi, the Radiologist. CHC/district hospital, Kaushambi, who conducted the X-ray on 3. 7. 2008 found two small rounded opaque shadows of metallic densities over the skull vault on the frontal bone of skull as noted above. Hence, on the order of the Magistrate, the FIR was registered under sections 308/323/504 IPC. 6. But as the accused after making allegations against the integrity of the Radiologist, Dr. Rastogi, prayed for constitut ing a Medical Board, the same was got constituted by the investigating officer, which consisted of Dr. Hence, on the order of the Magistrate, the FIR was registered under sections 308/323/504 IPC. 6. But as the accused after making allegations against the integrity of the Radiologist, Dr. Rastogi, prayed for constitut ing a Medical Board, the same was got constituted by the investigating officer, which consisted of Dr. Rajesh Chaddha (Orthopaedic Surgeon), Dr. Manu Gopal (Radiologist), Dr. B. L Jaiswal (Medical Officer) and which opinion was counter signed by the CMO. The Medical Board examined Smt. Savita Devi and submitted the following opinion on 20. 10. 2008: "chief MEDICAL OFFICER KAUSHAMBI MEDICAL EX AMINATION REPORT OF MEDI CAL BOARD No. 2515 Dt. 20. 10. 2008 Savita Devi age about 34 years old fe male, W/o Sri Brij Raj, R/o Village Piparhat, police station Sarainkil, district Kaushambi. Resident in front of medical board and exam ined by medical board members at 12. 20 PM on dated 20. 10. 2008 at CMO office, Kaushambi. On the basis of record, X-ray, X-ray report, statements of Medical Officer and Radiologist as well as physical examination of Savita Devi (concerned patient), we find that. . . . . 1. Injury Report dated 2. 7. 2008 clearly says that there is no black ening or tattooing at the site of in jury. It also did not mention any entry or exit wound. Instead, there is a lacerated wound being men tioned. And there is no injury to other parts of the body. 2. Radiological Report No. 620 dated 3. 7. 2008 by Radiologist CHC Sarainkil, district Kaushambi showing two small rounded opaque shadows of metallic density over the skull on the frontal bone. 3. Medical Officer (who did the medical examination and given injury report) statement dated 23. 8. 2008 taken by the police officer clearly mentioning that there is no sign of firearm injury. 4. Physical examination of Savita Devi by board members find a scar mark of size 1. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm over the scalp on frontal bone which seems to be as a result of healed lacerated wound, and feeling of small hard object which is move-able in all directions and subcuta neous. Opinion In the light of the above mentioned findings we members of the medi cal board are in the opinion that injury is not a firearm injury, in-- stead it is self inflicted. " 7. Opinion In the light of the above mentioned findings we members of the medi cal board are in the opinion that injury is not a firearm injury, in-- stead it is self inflicted. " 7. The Bench consisting of one of us (Amar Saran, J) and Honble R. N. Misra, J examined the said opinion of the Medical Board as well as other papers and observed in the order dated 17. 2. 2009 as under: "thus, it is pointed out that the board while noticing that the injury re port dated 2. 7. 2008 shows a lacer ated wound, but there was no in jury on any other part of the body, nor any entry or exit wound. The radiologist report dated 3. 7. 2008 conducted by the Radiologist C. H. C. Sarainkil shows two small rounded, shadows of metallic densities over the skull vault on the frontal bone of skull. It also men tions that the medical officer who conducted the medical examina tion and gave the injury report was examined by the police officer on 23. 8. 2008, and he has clearly men tioned in his statement that there was no sign of fire arm injury. We have examined the said statement, which has been produced by the I. O. present today. This is not the statement of the medical officer who conducted the medical exami nation on 2. 7. 2008 at all, but the opinion of the Radiologist who conducted the x-ray. In the state ment of the said radiologist in re ply to the question as to how the injury could have been caused, the reply was nil. To another question as to whether if the injury was due to firearm, how was the injury only received on the head and not on the other parts of the body. To this question also the Radiologist re plied that there were two small rounded opaque shadows of me tallic densities, which were seen in the x-ray on the head, and he was not in a position to state as to how said injury could have been caused. To this question also the Radiologist re plied that there were two small rounded opaque shadows of me tallic densities, which were seen in the x-ray on the head, and he was not in a position to state as to how said injury could have been caused. Thus, this averment in the report of the medical board that according to the doctor who had examined the injury of Savita Devi that it could not possibly have been caused by a fire arm appears to be based on a complete misreading of the statement of the Radiologist, and there is no such opinion of the doctor as aforesaid. Another fact which is mentioned in the report of Medical Board was that the physi cal examination of Savita Devi by board members shows a scar mark of size 1. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm over the scalp on the frontal bone which seems to be as a result of a healed lacerated wound and a small hard object could be felt which was moveable in all directions and is subcutaneous. In the light of above averments the Medical Board reported that the injury was not a firearm injury, in stead it was self inflicted. Prima fa cie in our opinion this opinion of Medical Board appears to be per verse and wholly unwarranted. The said firearm injury was re ceived by a woman by a firearm on 1. 7. 2008. Her medical examination was conducted on 2. 7. 2008 when the examining doctor found a lac erated injury on the scalp on the frontal bone region which was kept under observation and x-ray advised. The x-ray on 3. 7. 2008 showed two radio opaque shadows of metallic density confirming the allegations of firing. The pellet (hard object) even appeared pal pable on touch on 20. 10. 2008 when the opinion was given by the medi cal board. Simply because only one or two pellets struck the head pos sibly from a distant fire as there was no blackening and tattooing on the injury and there were no injuries on the rest of the body or exit and entry wound, could it lead to an inference that no firearm in jury at all was received by the in jured woman. Thus, it is incom prehensible to us at this stage as to how the board reached a positive opinion that the so-called firearm injury was not due to a firearm or that the injured woman, Savita Devi had self inflicted the said in jury on her forehead on the frontal bone over the skull vault. " 8-9. We, however, decided to summon the concerned doctors on 26. 2. 2009. who constituted the Medical Board because we thought it would be proper to reach a finding about the opinion of the Medical Board and the conduct of the doctors only after giving them an opportunity to explain as to how they had reached the aforesaid opinion. 10. On 26. 2. 2009 when the doctors appeared, the earlier Bench questioned them at length as to how they had reached the opinion, but they failed to give any satisfactory basis for their opinion. As the learned Additional Government Advocate produced the note of Dr. M. M. Ahmed dated 23. 8. 2008, who had conducted the initial medical examination of Smt. Savita Devi on 2. 7. 2008 at 9. 00 PM at CHC, Kaushambi, which was referred to in the opinion of the Medical Board dated 20. 10. 2008, and in the order dated 26. 2. 2009, we observed as follows regard ing the opinion of Dr. M. M. Ahmad: "we also regret to note that Dr. M. M. Ahmad, who conducted the initial medical examination of Smt. Savila Devi on 2. 7. 2008 at 9. 00 PM at CHC, Kaushambi, even after ob serving that Smt. Savita had a lac erated wound 1. 5 cm x 3 cm x skin on head 11 cm from right ear, no blackening and tattooing was found and X-ray of the skull (AP and lateral view) was advised, yet the said doctor has given his opin ion on 23. 8. 2008 to the investigat ing officer to the effect that at the time of examination there was no wound of firearm injury, which prima facie appears inconsistent wit 18. From the clear and cogent opinion expressed by the medicolegal expert Dr. Sinha, and from the observations of this Court referred to hereinabove, apparently the opinion of Dr. M. M. Ahmad dated 23. 8. 2008 does not appear very reliable. As Dr. Ahmad had initially seen the lacerated wound 1. From the clear and cogent opinion expressed by the medicolegal expert Dr. Sinha, and from the observations of this Court referred to hereinabove, apparently the opinion of Dr. M. M. Ahmad dated 23. 8. 2008 does not appear very reliable. As Dr. Ahmad had initially seen the lacerated wound 1. 5 cm x 3 cm over the scalp on the frontal bone which is situated 13 cm above the right ear root and 10. 2 cm above the right eyebrow on the head of Smt. Savita on 2. 7. 2008 and had also advised X-ray of the skull- region, which revealed two radio opaque shadows, Dr. Anmads opinion on 23. 8. 2008 that at the time of examination there was no wound of firearm injury, appears on the face of it, to be erroneous. 19. Likewise the two opinions of the medical boards consisting of 4 doctors in cluding the CMO, Kaushambi, the initial one being dated 20. 10. 2008 which notes that "in the light of the above mentioned findings we members of the medical board are in the opinion that injury is not a fire arm injury, instead it is self inflicted, " and the opinion of the Board dated 2. 3. 2009 that "shadows seen in the X-ray may or may not be due to pellets of fire arm and it can not be said definitely. A view of the ballis tic expert can be taken regarding nature of these radio-opaque shadows of metallic density" seem to be erroneous, and self-contradictory too. Self-contradictory be cause the first opinion of the medical board dated 20. 10. 2008 reaches a conclusion that the injury was not due to fire arm, and at the same time it goes on to suggest that the lady had herself inflicted the injury on her head. In this regard Dr. Sinha informed the Court that in his vast experience he had never come across such a case where such a firearm injury on the head of a woman was self-inflicced. The opinion of the medical board could also be deemed as incompe tent, inasmuch as in the second opinion of the Medical Board dated 2. 3. 2009 a vague suggestion has been made that the radio opaque shadows may or may not be due to pellets of a firearm and a ballistic expert was needed for clarifying this position. The opinion of the medical board could also be deemed as incompe tent, inasmuch as in the second opinion of the Medical Board dated 2. 3. 2009 a vague suggestion has been made that the radio opaque shadows may or may not be due to pellets of a firearm and a ballistic expert was needed for clarifying this position. It is made clear that it is only a doctor and not a ballistic expert at all who on a perusal of the X-ray and initial injury reports and af ter touching the moveable hard object on the head of an injured can determine whether the injury is due to a firearm. If at all after the still present pellets on Savita Devis head are extracted, the ballistic ex pert might succeed in venturing any opin ion about the nature of the fire arm which may have caused those pellets to be em bedded over the frontal bone of Savita Devi as suggested by Dr. U. S. Sinha. 20. In this view of the matter, we di rect that the copy of the written medical opinion of Dr. U. S. Sinha dated 16. 4. 2009 and copy of this order be forwarded to the lower Court for appreciation of the medical opinion in this case. It is of course expected that the Trial Court shall apply its inde pendent mind in appreciating the medical opinion evidence on record. Also if it ap pears to the Trial Judge that some evidence has been fabricated, falsified or suppressed so as to pollute the course of justice in this case by either side, the Trial Court shall take appropriate legal actions against the persons responsible for the same. 21. In this case we observe that in spite of two radio opaque shadows of me tallic density being seen in the radiological examination of Savita Devi on 3. 7. 2008 which was preceded by the medical exami nation report on 2. 7. 2008 which revealed a lacerated injury on Savitas head precisely at that point where X-ray was done, the S. O. concerned had only got an NCR under sections 323 and 504 IPC registered on 2. 7. 2008 and that the use of fire arms ap pears to have been concealed, compelling Smt. Savita to move the application under section 155 (2) Cr. P. C. to the Judicial Magis trate Kaushambi dated 8. 7. 7. 2008 and that the use of fire arms ap pears to have been concealed, compelling Smt. Savita to move the application under section 155 (2) Cr. P. C. to the Judicial Magis trate Kaushambi dated 8. 7. 2008, complain ing about these facts, whereafter section 308 IPC was added to the earlier sections. But again the Investigating Officer appears to have adopted a somewhat unprece dented and unusual procedure in getting a medical board constituted and obtaining an opinion from the board, on 20. 10. 2008 that the injury to Savitas head was not due to firearm and that it was self-inflicted. Thereafter, hurriedly on 23. 10. 2008 a charge-sheet was submitted only under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC at Case Crime No. 234-A by the police of P. S. Sarai Aqil, so as to nullify the petitioners appli cation and radiological reports etc. and claim that she received a firearm injury. In these circumstances we are prima facie of the view that use of extraneous pressures can not be ruled out in this case and we direct the S. P. Kaushambi to get the matter thoroughly probed and in case he is satis fied after an independent 0 enquiry that any of the police officers concerned have en gaged in any foul play or malpractice he should take strict action in the matter against the said officers. 22. It will also be open to the com plainant/petitioner to move an application before the competent Court for showing that the charge-sheet ought not to have been submitted only under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC but under other some graver sections too, and the Court con cerned shall pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. 23. Further the disturbing trend that doctors of late are becoming too careless and often willing tools ever ready to rubber stamp the opinions of investigating officers without application of their independent minds appears to have been again high lighted before this Court in the instant case. An opinion erroneously, collusively or dis honestly given by the doctor, who exam ines a victim can have far reaching consequences especially at the initial stage when a Court considers a bail application or a prayer for staying arrest of an accused or for any other purpose. An opinion erroneously, collusively or dis honestly given by the doctor, who exam ines a victim can have far reaching consequences especially at the initial stage when a Court considers a bail application or a prayer for staying arrest of an accused or for any other purpose. It is true that subse quently during trial the opinion of the doctor is considered only as an opinion evidence under section 45 of the Evidence Act, which is relevant, but not conclusive and the Court, is free to judicially estimate the value of the doctors Opinion evidence by examining how well it can explain and clarify the facts in issue. 24. In the circumstances of the case, we leave it open for the concerned Secre tary, Medical Health, U. P. to consider whether it would not be advisable to get a departmental enquiry conducted in the matter for enquiring as to whether the concerned doctors who have constituted the Medical Board and Dr. M. M. Ahmad who initially examined Savita Devi on 2. 7. 2008, but gave his opinion to the I. O. on 23. 8. 2008 have acted incompetently or collusively. 25. In the face of such incompetent expressions of medical opinions by the doctors, which are becoming increasingly prevalent, and which can seriously preju dice the fair conduct of investigations and trials in criminal cases, we would appreci ate if the concerned Secretary, Medical Health could develop a system for conduct ing refresher courses in Medical Jurispru dence for Government doctors who have to undertake medical examinations or post mortem examination of the victims, de ceased and others in medico-legal matters. 26. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. 1 The Secretary, Medical Health and the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi may submit their compliance report to this Court with regard to the aforesaid direc tions within three months 27. The Registrar General and the learned Government Advocate may com municate this order for compliance to the Secretary, Medical Health and the Superin tendent of Police, Kaushambi, within two weeks. Copy of the order may given to the learned Government Advocate free of cost within four days. Petition Disposed Of. .