Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 891 (PNJ)

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

2012-07-10

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Concisely the facts which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that complainant Jasvir Kumari-respondent No.2 (for brevity ‘’the complainant’’) filed a criminal complaint against petitioner and his other co-accused, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 325, 452, 147 and 149 IPC. 2. According to the petitioner, he sustained multiple injuries on his person at the hands of the opposite party in the same incident. He was admitted by Dr. Prem Kumar in Civil Hospital, Mukerian on 21.05.2006 and discharged on 03.06.2006 vide discharge slip (Annexure P-1). Although, he has examined Dr. Prem Kumar who has proved his MLR, but omitted to prove discharge slip (Annexure P-1) for want of record on that day. As soon as he came to know that his discharge slip (Annexure P-1) could not be proved for want of record with the doctor, immediately he moved an application for re-examination of Dr. Prem Kumar under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The application was dismissed by the trial Judge vide impugned order 20.01.2012 (Annexure P-3). The revision petition filed by petitioner was dismissed as well by the revisional Court by means of impugned order dated 31.05.2012 (Annexure P-2). 3. The petitioner-accused still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to challenge the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I hereby exempt the issuance of notices to the complainant-respondent No.2, in order to save her from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the case, particularly when she can well be compensated with adequate costs in this regard. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that petitioner accused in a cross version, sustained multiple injuries. He was admitted by Dr. Prem Kumar in Civil Hospital, Mukerian on 21.05.2006 and was discharged on 03.06.2006 (Annexure P-1). Although he has examined Dr. 6. As is evident from the record that petitioner accused in a cross version, sustained multiple injuries. He was admitted by Dr. Prem Kumar in Civil Hospital, Mukerian on 21.05.2006 and was discharged on 03.06.2006 (Annexure P-1). Although he has examined Dr. Prem Kumar as a witness who has proved his MLR but he could not prove his discharge slip of the hospital. 7. As is clear from the impugned orders that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the Courts below, to decline the prayer of the petitioner was that Dr. Prem Kumar was summoned along with MLR without bed head ticket and since the defence never intended to prove the bed head ticket of Rakesh Kumar, so, no ground to re-examine Dr. Prem Kumar is made out. 8. True, it may be that, petitioner has summoned Dr. Prem Kumar along with the record of MLR and he omitted to summon the record of bed head ticket, but here to me, the trial Court slipped into deep legal error in this respect. It ipso facto is not cogent ground to negate the prayer of the petitioner in this relevant context. As soon as he came to know about the lapse he immediately moved an application for re-examination of the doctor to prove the discharge slip (Annexure P-1). 9. As is clear, Section 311 Cr.P.C. postulates that any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. Meaning thereby the Court has vast power to permit the petitioner to re-examine Dr. Prem Kumar as contemplated under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is not matter of dispute that it is a case of cross version in which petitioner also sustained injuries. Which of the party was aggressor and what is the extent of nature of injuries caused by them, would be a moot point to be decided in the present case. Prem Kumar as contemplated under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is not matter of dispute that it is a case of cross version in which petitioner also sustained injuries. Which of the party was aggressor and what is the extent of nature of injuries caused by them, would be a moot point to be decided in the present case. To ascertain the nature of injury, to my mind the production and proof of bed head ticket (Annexure P-1) is very much essential to decide the real controversy between the parties. Moreover the production of entire evidence is essential and is the legal requirement of fair trial. Besides, it was the duty of doctor to bring all the relevant treatment record including discharge slip (Annexure P-1) while he was summoned to prove injuries contained in the MLR of the petitioner. 10. In that eventuality and taking the accusation/nature of offences into focus, it was the duty of the trial Court to permit the petitioner to prove the entire medical record. The trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to prove discharge slip (Annexure P-1) particularly when the complainant can well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. The same very error was repeated by the revisional Court. Therefore, to me, the Courts below have committed the illegality and material procedural irregularity and the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3) cannot legally be sustained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3) are hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to provide one more effective opportunity to the petitioner, to prove his discharge slip (Annexure P-1). The petitioner is further directed to take every endeavour and effective steps, to conclude the evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs, to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the complainant-respondent No.2. ---------0.B.S.0------------