High Court of Kerala
Nelavoy Dhinakar, J.
P Mammadkutty & Ors - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.R.P. No. 750 of 1992
Decided On : 17-06-1996
Acquittal - Criminal Procedure - The court found that the appellate court erred in sending the matter back to the Trial Court for filling up a lacuna on the side of the prosecution. The medical certificate could not be accepted as conclusive proof without the author being examined. The judgment of the appellate court was set aside and the matter remanded back to the Sessions Judge for fresh disposal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners and respondents were tried for various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the allegation of forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to the victims. The Trial Court convicted the petitioners and respondents, but the Court of Sessions set aside the order and remanded the matter back for trial and disposal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate court erred in sending the matter back to the Trial Court for filling up a lacuna on the side of the prosecution. The medical certificate could not be accepted as conclusive proof without the author being examined. The judgment of the appellate court was set aside and the matter remanded back to the Sessions Judge for fresh disposal.
Issues: The main issue was the correctness of the appellate court's decision to remand the matter back to the Trial Court for filling up a lacuna on the side of the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The medical certificate cannot be accepted as conclusive proof without the author being examined. The appellate court erred in sending the matter back to the Trial Court for filling up a lacuna on the side of the prosecution.
Final Decision: The judgment of the appellate court was set aside and the matter remanded back to the Sessions Judge for fresh disposal.
N. Dhinakar, J.
1. Petitioners are A1, A2 and A5 in C.C. No. 24/88 which was instituted on a police report against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 in this revision. Petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 4 were tried before the learned Magistrate for offences under S.326, 143, 147, 148, 447 and 323 read with S.149 IPC on an allegation that the petitioners along with respondents 2 to 4 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 12-10-1987 and with a common object trespassed into the property for tilling operation and when P.W. 1 came to the scene on hearing about the incident, was caught hold of by his neck and pushed down by the first petitioner and that thereafter the 2nd petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 beat P.W. 1 with the handle of a spade and with sticks. P. W.2 the wife of P. W. 1 when came to the scene on hearing the commotion was also beaten by the petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 4 as a result of which both P. Ws. 1 and 2 sustained simple and grievous injuries. They were then taken to the District Hospital, Manjeri where they were treated and on an intimation from the hospital Police reached the hospital and a statement was recorded, upon which a crime was registered. Investigation was taken up which resulted in filing of a final report as stated above against the petitioners as well as against respondents 2 to 4.
2. To prove the above allegations the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 and marked Exts. P1 to P10 and MOs. 1 to 4. When the petitioners were questioned, they denied their complicity, but did not choose to examine any witnesses on their side. The Trial Court, on consideration of the materials, came to the conclusion that the petitioners, though have to be convicted for the offences with which they were charged, they have to be acquitted for the offence under S.326 read with 149 IPC as the prosecution did not examine any doctor to prove that the victims suffered grievous injuries. Accordingly the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offences under S.447, 323, 148 IPC. In default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. No separate sentence was awarded for the offences under S.143 and 147 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction the petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 4 filed an appeal to the Court of Sessions, which for the reasons mentioned in the judgment set aside the order of the Trial Court and remanded the matter back for trial and disposal.
3. In my view the order of the appellate court has to be set aside. The appellate court found that there was a serious flaw in the judgment of the lower court as in the view of the appellate court the Trial Court erred in acquitting the petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 4 under S.326 IPC. on the ground that the prosecution did not succeed in proving that the victims have suffered grievous injuries. I am of the view that the Sessions Court has in fact committed a grave illegality in sending the matter back to the Trial Court for filling up a lacuna on the side of the prosecution. It is not in dispute that before the Trial Court the doctor who examined PWs 1 and 2 could not be examined and that the wound certificates issued by him were not proved. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that even if, inspite of repeated steps the presence of the medical officer could not be secured, it ought to have accepted the certificates as conclusive proof and should have given a finding thereon. This view of the learned Sessions Judge is not correct. Any document can only be proved by the maker and if under any circumstances the doctor who issued the certificate is not available and could not be produced in court for his examination, then the only course left to the prosecution is to examine another doctor from the same hospital who was conversant with the handwriting of the doctor who issued the certificate. A medical certifi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.