Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Santosh and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 973 of 2020
Decided On : 12-02-2021
Remand - Criminal Appeal - The appellate Court directed the trial Court to examine a witness whose name was not mentioned in the charge-sheet, specifically the Doctor who had prepared the X-ray report. The petitioners argued that the entire evidence was available on record and the appellate Court should have decided the case afresh on the same evidence. However, the Court held that the examination of the Doctor was necessary to prove the charge of causing grievous hurt with a hard and blunt object under Section 325 IPC, and therefore, the remand was justified.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were facing trial for the offence under Section 294, 323, 452, 506/34 and 325 IPC. The appellate Court directed the trial Court to examine a witness whose name was not mentioned in the charge-sheet, specifically the Doctor who had prepared the X-ray report.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the examination of the Doctor was necessary to prove the charge of causing grievous hurt with a hard and blunt object under Section 325 IPC, and therefore, the remand was justified. The admission was declined and the revision was dismissed accordingly.
Issues: The issues revolved around the necessity of examining a witness whose name was not mentioned in the charge-sheet and the justification for the appellate Court's decision to remand the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the examination of the Doctor was essential to prove the charge of causing grievous hurt with a hard and blunt object under Section 325 IPC, and therefore, the remand was justified.
Final Decision: The admission was declined and the revision was dismissed accordingly.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The appellate court directed the trial court to examine a witness whose name was not initially included in the charge-sheet, specifically the doctor who prepared the X-ray report. This was deemed necessary to establish the charge under Section 325 IPC, which involves causing grievous hurt with a hard and blunt object (!) (!) .
The petitioners challenged this remand order, arguing that all evidence was already on record and that the case should be decided based on existing evidence. They also contended that they have been facing trial since 2004 and should not be subjected to prolonged proceedings (!) .
The court upheld the appellate court's decision, emphasizing that the examination of the doctor was essential because the X-ray report was crucial to proving the charge under Section 325 IPC. The fact that the doctor’s name was not initially in the charge-sheet was considered an inadvertent mistake that could be rectified (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the non-inclusion of the doctor’s name in the charge-sheet did not invalidate the necessity of examining him, as his testimony was vital for establishing the evidence related to the X-ray report. The court also distinguished this case from others where remanding was based solely on available evidence, emphasizing the importance of expert testimony in this context (!) .
The final decision was to decline the petitioners' request to set aside the remand order and dismiss the revision, affirming that the appellate court’s direction to examine the doctor was justified and in accordance with law (!) .
The case involved charges under multiple sections of the IPC, with particular emphasis on the proof of injuries through X-ray reports and expert testimony to substantiate the allegations of causing grievous hurt (!) .
Let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal implications.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of remand dated 14.03.2019, the petitioners, who are facing trial for the offence under Section 294, 323, 452, 506/34 and 325 IPC have come before this Court.
2. The sole ground taken by the petitioners to get the order of remand set-aside is that the learned appellate Court has directed the trial Court to examine the witness whose name has not been mentioned in the charge-sheet itself, therefore, according to the petitioners, the order of the remand is erroneous, bad in law and deserves to be set-aside. Another ground taken by the petitioners is that they are facing the trial since 2004, therefore, should not be dragged to face the trial again for years together.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Fahim Khan vs. State of Bihar reported in (2011) 13 SCC 147; wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the entire evidence is available on record then the appellate Court instead of remanding back the case should have decided it afresh on the basis of same evidence. The appellate Court should make its independent assessment of the material on record and decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding it back.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Ajay Kumar Jain lodged a report against the petitioners on 03.01.2004 that they assaulted him and caused grievous injuries by sticks and kicks & fists. He was taken to the Community Health Centre, Begamganj where Doctor examined him and observed the injuries on several parts of the body. In the opinion of the Doctor, injuries No. 3, 5 and 6 were simple in nature while rest of the injuries caused on the left parietal side of the head and on the back side of the left hand at base of the fingers, he referred the injured for X-ray examination. X-ray was conducted and the report was filed with the charge-sheet showing fracture on 5th metacarpal of left hand. All the petitioners were charged and tried for the offence under Section 294, 323, 452, 506/34 and 325 IPC. Since charge under Section 452 of IPC was not found proved, the petitioners were acquitted from that charge while the charges under rest of the Sections were found proved and the petitioners were sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as follows:
5. Against their conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begamganj vide judgment dated 04.07.2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 75/2004, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 96/2011 which was heard and decided by the Second Additional Session Judge, Begamganj vide impugned order dated 14.03.2018.
6. The learned appellate Court observed that before the trial Court, the Doctor who had given X-ray report was not examined and without any proof of X-ray report/plate, it was not possible to held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 325 of IPC. The learned Appellate Court also observed that examination of the Doctor who had given X-ray report was necessary for the just and proper decision of the case, therefore, the Appellate Court remanded back the case to the Judicial Magistrate First Class with direction to record the statement of the said Doctor and pass a judgment afresh, in accordance with law.
7. It is not disputed that X-ray report was filed with the charge-sheet, though it is also not disputed that the name of the Doctor who had prepared X-ray report has not been mentioned in the charge-sheet but there cannot be two views that the Doctor who was author of the X-ray report was a necessary witness to prove the charge levelled against the petitioners under Section 325 IPC i
The examination of essential witnesses, even if not mentioned in the charge-sheet, may be necessary to prove specific charges, justifying a remand for further examination.
An appellate court must adhere to statutory provisions when ordering a retrial or remand; failure to comply renders the remand illegal.
Point of Law : Section 311 CrPC is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At the same time, the discretion....
Re-trial should only be ordered in exceptional circumstances where the trial was vitiated by serious illegalities or irregularities, or where the prosecutor or accused were prevented from tendering m....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
