Back
1983 Supreme(Raj) 280
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
K.D.Sharma, J.
Girdhari - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 60 of 1977.
Decided On : 24-02-1983
Failure of the prosecution to produce the medical expert who conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased is fatal to its case and the accused is entitled to acquittal on the charge under section 304A, I.P.C.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - CAUSING DEATH BY RASH AND NEGLIGENT ACT - SECTION 304A, 337, 279, I.P.C. - FAILURE TO PRODUCE MEDICAL EXPERT - EFFECT - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 304A ALTERED TO SECTION 337, I.P.C. - SENTENCE REDUCED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Girdhari, was convicted and sentenced under sections 304A, 337, and 279, I.P.C. for causing the death of Jagdish Prasad and injuries to Ram Kishore and Man Singh due to rash and negligent driving of his truck. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentences on the ground that the prosecution failed to produce the medical expert who conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased, Jagdish Prasad Sharma.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to produce the medical expert who conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased, Jagdish Prasad Sharma, and that the injury report and post-mortem examination report were not proved and exhibited by the evidence of the medical expert. The court held that the failure of the prosecution to prove the injury and post-mortem reports was fatal to its case and that the petitioner was entitled to acquittal on the charge under section 304A, I.P.C.
Issues: 1. Whether the failure of the prosecution to produce the medical expert who conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased was fatal to its case. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to acquittal on the charge under section 304A, I.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure of the prosecution to produce the medical expert who conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased was fatal to its case and that the petitioner was entitled to acquittal on the charge under section 304A, I.P.C. The court relied on the principles laid down in Mohinder Singh v. The State, AIR 1953 S.C. 415, Dhanna v. State, 1950 RLW 357, and Sunil Chandra v. The State, AIR 1954 Cal. 305.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision petition and altered the conviction of the petitioner from under section 304A to one under section 337, I.P.C. for causing injuries to Jagdish Prasad Sharma, deceased, on account of rash and negligent driving of his truck. The court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded under section 304-A. I.P.C. to the term already undergone by him, and in addition thereto maintained the fine of Rs 2,00/-, with the direction that in default of payment of fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
-
The case involves Girdhari, who was initially convicted of causing death by rash and negligent driving under section 304A, along with charges under sections 337 and 279 of the IPC (!) (!) .
-
The incident occurred when Girdhari's truck, driven at high speed and negligently, collided with individuals standing on a footpath, resulting in injuries to Ram Kishore, Man Singh, and the death of Jagdish Prasad (!) (!) .
-
The prosecution failed to produce the medical expert who conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased, which was a critical piece of evidence. Despite efforts to summon this witness, the expert's attendance could not be secured, and no secondary evidence was provided to prove the injury and post-mortem reports (!) (!) .
-
The court acknowledged that the evidence from eyewitnesses and injured persons sufficiently proved the occurrence of the accident and injuries caused by the vehicle, but the absence of expert medical evidence made it difficult to conclusively establish that the death was due to the injuries sustained in the incident (!) .
-
As a result, the court found that the failure to produce the medical expert's testimony was fatal to the original charge under section 304A. Consequently, the conviction was altered from section 304A to section 337 of the IPC for causing injuries through rash and negligent driving (!) (!) .
-
The sentence under section 304A was reduced to the period already undergone, with the fine of Rs. 2000/- maintained, and in default of payment, further imprisonment was ordered. Similar reductions were applied to sentences under sections 279 and 337, with the original fines and default imprisonment terms maintained (!) .
-
The court upheld the order that fines, if deposited, would be distributed as compensation to the victims or their legal heirs, and the petitioner was permitted to remain on bail without surrendering to bail bonds (!) .
-
The revision petition was partly allowed, resulting in the modification of the conviction and sentences as described, with a two-month window given to deposit the fines, failing which legal action would ensue (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal and factual aspects of the case as outlined in the document.
