JUDGMENT :

Shameem Akther, J.

This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’), is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 23.12.2021, passed in S.C.No.30 of 2014 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women-I-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the Court below convicted the appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for six (6) months, in addition to conviction period.

2. We have heard the submissions of Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and perused the record.

3. The core contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/ accused is that the doctor who examined the victim and allegedly issued Ex.P8-Medical report of the victim was not examined before the Court below to prove the contents of the same. Without formally proving Ex.P8-Medical report of the victim, which is tendered in evidence by PW.11-investigation officer, the Court below erroneously took the same into consideration to come to a conclusion that PW.2-victim was sexually assaulted by the appellant/accused.

4. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused. It is evident from the record that Ex.P8-Medical report of the victim was tendered in evidence by PW.11-Investigation Officer in this case. It is settled law that mere marking of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Nor, mere marking of exhibit does not dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done, in accordance with law. In medical jurisprudence, proof of writings and reports by any other person, than the real author of a document, should be by a ‘competent person’. Such document should not be brought in evidence mechanically, only for the sake of empty formality, but, if taken in evidence, it should be meaningful and purposeful. In case of Injury Certificate/Wound Certificate/PME Certificate etc., the execution of such a document has to be proved by evidence of those technical/expert persons who can certify the contents of such document. It should be proved firstly by examining the doctor himself who issued the same; and if the said doctor is not found, the course available to the prosecution is to examine some other doctor from the same hospital, who knew the handwritings and signature of the doctor who issued the certificate in question. When the other doctor is examined who knew the handwritings and signature of the doctor who issued Ex.P8-medical report of the victim, he would have spoken about the contents of the medical report and the conclusions reached therein. In such an event, there would have been an opportunity to the appellant/accused to cross-examine the said doctor to answer the questions raised in relation to the commission of rape etc., and it would have been helpful to the Court to arrive at a just conclusion. Non-examination of the doctor who issued Ex.P.8-Medical report of the victim or any doctor working in the same hospital capable of identifying the handwritings and signature of the author of Ex.P8-medical report of the victim certainly causes prejudice to the appellant/accused. In the absence of such evidence, it is unsafe to act on Ex.P8-medical report of the victim.

5. Similar question came up for determination before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Sowam Kisku and others Vs. The State of Bihar, 2006 Crl.L.J. 2526 wherein, the post mortem report of the deceased therein was sought to be proved by a Compounder attached to the hospital. Declining such practice, the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court observed as follows:-

"8. We are unable to understand as to why the prose