Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Udairaj Singh @ Udaiveer and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 10408 of 2024
Decided On : 02-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amitrana.
For the Respondent: Nagendra Pratap Singh.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the nature of an injury and corroborating witness statements can provide sufficient grounds for summoning accused under Section 307 IPC, and that medical reports from investigations are admissible as public documents in criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SUMMONING OF ACCUSED - Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 IPC; Sections 200, 202, 204 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the application of Sections 147, 148, 149, and 307 of the IPC, emphasizing the necessity of establishing prima facie evidence for summoning accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The court interpreted the nature of the injury sustained by the complainant as indicative of an attempt to cause death, thus satisfying the criteria for Section 307 IPC. The court upheld the use of medical reports as public documents, reinforcing the validity of the trial court's reliance on them in its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant lodged an FIR against the applicants under various sections of the IPC, including attempted murder. After investigation, a final report was submitted, followed by a protest petition treated as a criminal complaint. The applicants were summoned based on the medical report and witness statements regarding the complainant's firearm injury.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had sufficient grounds to summon the applicants under Section 307 IPC based on the nature of the injury and corroborating witness statements. The court ruled that the medical report, although not presented during the initial proceedings, was a public document and could be considered.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in summoning the applicants under Section 307 IPC based on the medical report and witness statements, and whether the nature of the injury was sufficient to establish intent to kill.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the firearm injury, along with the statements of the injured and medical professionals, provided prima facie evidence of an attempt to cause death, fulfilling the requirements of Section 307 IPC. The court affirmed that the trial court could consider public documents in its decision-making process.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application to quash the summoning order, affirming the trial court's decision to proceed against the applicants under the relevant sections of the IPC.
ORDER :
1. In the present case few facts are not under disputed that complainant has initially lodged an FIR against present applicants, which was registered as Crime No. 0086 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 504, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnor.
2. In the aforesaid FIR investigation was conducted, however, a final report was submitted on 27.04.2020. The complainant thereof filed a Protest Petition, which was considered as a Criminal Complaint by an order dated 06.12.2022. Thereafter, statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and present applicants were summoned under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C. by impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for applicants has mainly argued that impugned order was passed essentially on basis of a medical report of injured which has been extensively recorded and considered in the impugned order. His further argument is that the said medical report was not placed by complainant or witnesses during proceedings and was taken note possibly from document annexed with the charge sheet, which ought to not have done as it was alien to procedure prescribed for consideration of complaint case and to pass an order under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
4. It is further contended that even on basis of nature of injury, which is "Lacerated 2 x 2 cm right upper margin are inverted, blackening wound bone deep and tattooing are present and also blackening present. KUO. Opinion-above injury are KUO, Fresh and caused by fire arm" was not sufficient to summon the applicants under Section 307 I.P.C. as not only it was caused on non vital part, but was not dangerous to life also. It is on record that doctors, who examined injured as well as operated, were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The relevant part of impugned order is reproduced hereinafter:
5. The above submissions are opposed by Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, though on basis of material on record, he is not able to show that above referred medical report was either placed by complainant or witnesses during their statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. except in impugned order, the learned Trial Court has noted in impugned order that medical report, supplementary report and x-ray report was available on record. So far as nature of injury is concerned, it is the argument of learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that aforesaid fire arm injury was caused when injured has tried to safe his life from a bullet aimed on him and it hit him on hand and by operation, number of pellets were taken out.
6. Heard Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Rana, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
7. The above referred facts are not under disputed that an FIR was lodged by complainant, which was investigated and finally a final report was submitted. Later on a Protest Petition was filed by complainant, which was treated as a Complaint Case and thereafter statements were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter applicants were summoned by impugned order dated 31.05.2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C.
8. In present case, complainant got examined Dr. Ajay Dharmesh and Dr. Naresh Johari, under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who have examined and operated the injured. In their respective statements they have mentioned that injured got a fire arm injury and on operation number of pellets were taken out. For reference, said statements are reproduced hereinafter:
9. The statement of complainant Amarpal, uncle (injured) who was initially examined at P.H.C. Hospital Noorpur from where he was referred to Bijnor where operation took place was also recorded and for reference is also reproduced hereinafter:
10. Under aforesaid circumstances, on basis of s
