JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J. 1. This present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13.9.99 passed by the Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial no. 749/96, convicting each of the appellant under section 323 IPC, sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 6 months and pay fine of Rs. 250/- in default of payment of fine each of them to undergo R.I. for one month each, have filed this appeal. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that the complainant PW.1 Madan had given five rupee note to accused Netram for purchasing a bidi. The said accused returned four one rupee note to the complainant but as the notes were torn and were bad in shape, the complainant refused to accept the said currency notes and asked for good money, on which Netram started abusing the complainant. On complainant's request that his money be returned back accused Netram and the other accused who are having their shops nearby started beating the complainant by hands, fists etc. According to the complainant, the police constable had come on the spot and the complainant was taken to the police station but the police did not take his report. Thereafter he was brought to the hospital where also he was informed that he was absolutely all right and accordingly he was not treated. Suffering severe pains, the complainant went to the M.L.A. of the locality who persuaded the police to take the report. Thereafter the complainant was sent for his medical examination. He was again examined by the doctors and was admitted in the hospital. One Dr. Prem Bahadur Punnu examined the complainant and reported that the injuries suffered by the complainant were dangerous to life as the complainant had suffered rupture in the spleen. On completion of the investigation, the prosecution agency filed the challan against the accused persons. The learned trial court on conclusion of the trial, acquitted each of the appellant for offences punishable under section 307/34 IPC but however convicted them under section 323 IPC and sentenced them as referred to above. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences, the appellants have filed this appeal. 3. It is most unfortunate case where each and every person deployed to see that proper justice is done not only to the accused but to the complainant as well, has failed in his duty. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences, the appellants have filed this appeal. 3. It is most unfortunate case where each and every person deployed to see that proper justice is done not only to the accused but to the complainant as well, has failed in his duty. From the statements of PW.1 Madan it clearly appears that he was taken to the police station but his report was not taken. It is unfortunate that the police authorities only to show the less number of registration of the crimes did not record his first information report. It is again unfortunate that the complainant who was suffering severe pains was not properly treated by the doctors on duty in the Victoria Hospital. It is again unfortunate that the public prosecutor/Government Pleader did not care to summon doctor Prem Bahadur Punnu to prove the report and to show to the court that the complainant infact had suffered qrievous injuries and the injuries were dangerour to life. It is again unfortunate that the trial court did not persuade the learned Govt. Pleader to produce the witness to do complete justice in the matter. It appears that because of the indifference shown by the persons concerned at different stages the complainant infact could not get justice. It is mockery of law that the complainant who suffered injury had to depend upon such persons who did not know now to discharge their duties. 4. If the procedural law is read it would show that the same is made in the interest and for the benefit of the accused. On one side the report of the complainant is not recorded and on the other hand the complainant is required to approach a political/powerful man so that in this system he may get some justice or some solace. The doctors who are under the oath to treat the patient have acted in such a platonic manner as if they were not the doctors but ordinary Govt. Servants. It is expected in the system that a person who goes to the police station is permitted to state his case and his report is recorded in its true perspective. Even if the present was a case under section 323 IPC, the police was required to register the case without intervention of the M.L.A., so that the wrong doers were brought to the book. Even if the present was a case under section 323 IPC, the police was required to register the case without intervention of the M.L.A., so that the wrong doers were brought to the book. The system says that the accused must be benefited by every lapse committed by the prosecution but says nothing in favour of the sufferer. On one side the report of the complainant is not recorded right in time and on the other hand the accused says that there was unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. A fortunate complainant if gets his report recorded cannot ask the investigating officer to investigate in a particular manner. He can't ask the Investigating Officer to examine particular person as a witness because the choice is given to the Investigating Officer and he is the master for investigation. If the complainant wants to engage a private lawyer so that he may get complete justice, the procedural law does not permit him to engage a private counsel to conduct his case and if he is permitted to engage a private counsel, then such counsel can only help and assist the public prosecutor. The accused is absolutely free to engage a counsel of his choice or he may even change a counsel as and when he wants. No option has been given to the complainant to examine the witnesses. He cannot even ask the Government Pleader to summon and examine the witnesses. The choice is given to the public prosecutor to examine the witnesses as he wants. If the complainant asks the court to examine a particular witness, such witness shall not be examined by the court unless the public prosecutor makes a request to the court. The conduction of the case is left in the hands of the public prosecutor, defence counsel and the Judge. The public prosecutor may give up the witnesses, and no body is ready to see whether such person is an important witness or not. The Court is simply happy if witnesses are given up because its burden of recording evidence is reduced. But, is it not for the court conducting the trial to see whether such request of giving up witnesses is to be allowed or some fetter are put on powers of public prosecutor. The Court is simply happy if witnesses are given up because its burden of recording evidence is reduced. But, is it not for the court conducting the trial to see whether such request of giving up witnesses is to be allowed or some fetter are put on powers of public prosecutor. Non availability of the witnesses may some times persuade the public prosecutor to give up the witness but the court can't be a silent spectator to the drama going in the court. Should we have a trial in the Court or a farce in the name of the trial. Is it not the duty of the Presiding Officer to see that the summons are issued in accordance with its directions or should it feel content by writing 'that the summons be issued positively'. Even if it burdens the court's work the Presiding Officer can't be permitted to say that he would not observe his own proceedings should the fate of the case be left in the hands of the public prosecutor and the defence or the judge should press his authority. When summons are not issued despite directions of the court and lapses, is it fair. Is it not a slur on the system that the crime goes unpunished and the victim is not heard at all. What would a victim think about the system. It would not be out of place to mention that each of these persons is absolutely indifferent as none of them have suffered the pains of the injuries. Each is happy that something is being done in the matter. 5. For large number of courts there are few Public Prosecutors/G.P./A.G.P. Is every court not entitled to be assisted by Public Prosecutor/Govt. Pleader/ A.G.P. For Jabalpur I say with authority that for fourteen Magistrates, we only have five public prosecutors. Can with this less number of the public prosecutors the cases are to be conducted properly and be decided in accordance with law. For large number of courts there are less than few court Moharrirs for issuing summons. He does not find time to issue summons and the court is required to adjourn the case time and again. One fine morning the Judge feeling frustrated closes the prosecution's right to lead evidence and acquits the accused for want of evidence. Would it be fiar. Are we giving proper justice to victim. He does not find time to issue summons and the court is required to adjourn the case time and again. One fine morning the Judge feeling frustrated closes the prosecution's right to lead evidence and acquits the accused for want of evidence. Would it be fiar. Are we giving proper justice to victim. If the State deprives an individual of his right to prosecute his case on an assurance that it would look after the interest of the individual with sincerity and honesty then why such assurances should not be translated into action. Why P.P./G.P./A.G.P. should not conduct the trials properly why should State and its officers feel that to decide a case in accordance with law is the duty of the Court and they are not required to assist the court. Why should they expect that in their absence the court would record the statements of the witnesses. The absence of A.G.P./G.P./P.P. would not be sufficient as an excuse in favour of the Judge. If the old saying that 'to decide is divine' mean something then judge is bound to discharge his duties with utmost sincerity commitment and dedication. A Judge is expected to decide a case and not dispose it or weed it out. It is expected of the Prosecution Agency and police that after receiving the summons or warrants the same would be served or executed as is required under the law. Whether summons and warrants are served or not, at least a report be submitted to the court on the date already fixed for the purpose. Why the witnesses should not be kept in attendance. Is it not the duty of the police to produce the under trial prisoner before the court as and when so asked. Can they be permitted to say that for want of police force or Guards the accused cannot be produced in the court on the date fixed for the purpose. It is prime duty of the prosecution agency to produce the Govt. Servants, Doctors, Investigating Officers and Police personnel etc. on the date of hearing. All persons who are required to appear in the court as witnesses are not immune from court proceedings. It is prime duty of the prosecution agency to produce the Govt. Servants, Doctors, Investigating Officers and Police personnel etc. on the date of hearing. All persons who are required to appear in the court as witnesses are not immune from court proceedings. If the accused is convicted, then he has a right of appeal but the law does not give a right of appeal to the complainant even if he feels that the acquittal is wrong or that the findings recorded by the trial Court are bad. Whether an appeal is to be filed or not is again left to the choice of the State, which is expected to protect the interest of every citizen. In the present case, I am required to write all this because the manner in which the case was conducted by the public prosecutor was absolutely dissatisfactory. It is expected of a public prosecutor that he should bring before the court all such witnesses who can prove the quit of the accused. If it is the duty of the public prosecutor to see that an innocent person is not punished then he must see that a wrong doer does not escape the proper punishment. If Dr. Prem Bahadur was examined in the court then certainly he could prove his report and could bring on the record that the injuries suffered by the complainant were dangerous to life. The records show that the Public Prosecutor/Govt. Pleader was happy in informing the court that doctor Prem Bahadur was transferred to some other place and felt content after examining PW.8 Dr. Pawan Kumar Agrawal, less realising that said doctor Pawan Kumar was not acquainted with the hand writing of Dr. Prem Bahadur Punnu and could not prove the contents of Ex. P.10 or handwriting of the said doctor. Though Ex. P.10, as it is, would not be admissible in evidence but perusal of Ex.P. 10 would show that according to the doctor, the patient had rupture in his spleen and had suffered other injuries also. The opinion of doctor Punnu was that the injuries were dangerous to life. If on face of this report, the Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor was content with examination of PW.8 then this court is required to intervene in the matter at this stage. The learned trial court permitted the learned Addl. The opinion of doctor Punnu was that the injuries were dangerous to life. If on face of this report, the Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor was content with examination of PW.8 then this court is required to intervene in the matter at this stage. The learned trial court permitted the learned Addl. Government Pleader to close the evidence for the prosecution vide its proceedings dated 24.08.99. It does not appear from the said proceedings recorded by the learned court that it ever applied its mind to the facts of the case which were brought on record and the manner in which doctor Prem Bahadur was not being examined. Non-examination of Dr. Prem Bahadur Punnu in the opinion of this court, has certainly caused injustice to the complainant. The law no where says that every benefit should be extended to the accused only. A complainant who suffered under the hands of an accused person is also entitled to justice, and in fact true justice. Why one should be so platonic and indifferent to the injury of other ? When the court tries an offender on a particular charge, it is expected of the court that is would persuade the State, and its prosecution agency/learned Govt. Pleader and the concerned police officers of the said police station to bring the proper evidence on record for doing complete and absolute justice between the parties. A court is not expected to decide the case in a very casual or cavalier manner. The duty of the court is to do justice, not only to the accused but to the complainant also. In the instant case the learned trial court award six months R.I. to, and imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- on each accused. The amount of fine would go to the State. Was the court awarding costs to litigation to the State or was it for securing the conviction. Who had suffered the injuries, the State or the complainant. Who should have been compensated for the injuries. The complainant was running from pillar to post for redressal of grievances not the State or its agencies. For what section 357 is enacted. Why a court imposing fine should not give something out of it to the victim. Is it not the duty of the court to exercise its powers of Section 357 and award proper compensation to the victim. For what section 357 is enacted. Why a court imposing fine should not give something out of it to the victim. Is it not the duty of the court to exercise its powers of Section 357 and award proper compensation to the victim. Is the victim not entitled to some sympathy from the court. Should the Judge be not persuaded by the condition of the victim. When accused is required to pay compensation to the complainant he learns that crime does not pay but one has to pay for the crime. For paying the fine the accused will have to earn, pay and learn while on the other hand the complainant would feel that somebody cares for him. 6. The proceedings recorded by the learned trial court show that the summons issued to Dr. Prem Bahadur Punnu returned unserved as he was not available in the said hospital but the copies of the summons are not available in the record sent to this court. Be that as it may, the trial court was bound to obtain correct and complete address of doctor Prem Bahadur Punnu and summon him as a witness. In this opinion of this court, neither the learned public Prosecutor not the learned court below were justified in not examining the doctor Prem Bahadur Punnu. At this stage, it would again be necessary to refer to the bed head ticket of the patient which would clearly show that the patient was admitted in the hospital on 12.03.96 and was discharged from the hospital on 26.3.96. If such facts can be ignored then obviously no court would be doing justice to the case on hands. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the manner in which the learned Government Pleader did not examine the doctors, I am of the opinion that the judgment delivered by the trial court deserves to be set aside and the matter needs to be sent back to the trial court for taking further evidence. 7. The judgment delivered by the trial court is set aside. The trial court is directed to obtain the correct address of doctors M.L. Agrawal and Prem Bahadur Punnu, issue summons to them and after securing their attendance, examine them as prosecution witnesses. The appellants who are present in the court are directed to appear before the trial court on 4.1.2000. The judgment delivered by the trial court is set aside. The trial court is directed to obtain the correct address of doctors M.L. Agrawal and Prem Bahadur Punnu, issue summons to them and after securing their attendance, examine them as prosecution witnesses. The appellants who are present in the court are directed to appear before the trial court on 4.1.2000. A copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned counsel for the State so that he may issue proper instructions to the learned Addl. Government Pleader/Govt. Pleader who has to conduct the case in the trial court. 8. Let Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur be also informed that it is the duty of the police to obtain correct addresses of the witnesses, serve them with the summons and produce them in the court so that they are examined in support of the prosecution allegations. It is expected of the trial court that it shall conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the accused persons. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further trial and disposal nay, decision in accordance with law. Appeal allowed