In the case of the bail application Suhaib Illyasi, producer of television serial India’s Most Wanted, the Delhi High Court bench of Justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta on Tuesday (April 3) said that the court would hear the application. The next date of hearing is May 1, when this issue is likely to be discussed.

The petitioner is challenging his conviction and life sentence for allegedly murdering his wife Anju Illyasi in 2000.

The counsel for the petitioner said all doctors opined that it was case of suicide. Subsequent opinion taken by three doctors in which two doctors signed the opinion contending that it was a case of suicide except the one doctor. After 8 months he (the doctor) wrote a letter to the DCP that it is a case of homicide.

In the year 2014 charges were amended.

The bench asked: “Is the medical board opinion discharged?”

The petitioner said: “After constitution of the board of doctors who examined the aspects, they categorically mentioned that the compete report did not disclose the path of injury. Earlier examination was on the body only.”

Doctor Anil Aggarwal, head of five doctors, said basis of the opinion was an incomplete post-mortem report. They didn’t consider the old post-mortem report. My whole submission is that there is incomplete report of these five doctors. The investigating officer remained present during the deliberations of these board meetings.

The bench asked: “Were the doctors who first saw the body part of the board opinion?”

The petitioner said no. “I have challenged this ground as well. I was acquitted by both the trial courts under the cases 498a against me. In the case of homicide only one witness was examined so far.

“There have been two provision of CrPC. If the charge is amended it is the duty of the court to permit an alteration or addition to a charge or framing of a new charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

“An alteration or addition of a new charge shall be read and explained to the defendant and his plea to the amended or new charge shall be taken. All these are provisions under section 216 CrPC. None of the witnesses were called for examination.”

The bench asked the petitioner to move an application for four witnesses.

The petitioner said: “We have challenged the opinion of five doctors.”

At that the bench said: “It is for the trial court to take decision on that.”

—India Legal Bureau