Back
VIRENDER SINGH
Santosh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
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 a
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
