Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2067 (RAJ)

Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-22

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant against the order dated 20.1.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nokha directing framing of charge against the respondents No. 2 and 3 for the offences under Sections 341, 341/34, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34, 325 and 325/34 I.P.C. 2. The complainant is aggrieved of the fact that Investigating Officer in connivance with the accused party fraudulently got the medical reports tampered/manipulated and filed a charge sheet against the accused deliberately leaving out the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. which was prima facie made out. Learned Counsel submits that as per the medical opinion made available to the complainant with his bed head ticket, it was specifically mentioned that the injury No. 1 was grievous in nature and dangerous to life. Learned Counsel submits that the said opinion was thereafter tampered by the doctor and he added the words "but can not ascertain at level of in my opinion". Learned Counsel submits that from a bare perusal of the two reports by the naked eye, it is evident that the Medical Officer has interpolated in the opinion earlier given by him. Learned Counsel further submits that a incised wound by sharp edged weapon was caused to the petitioner on his parietal region. He submits that as a result of the injury, the parietal region of the petitioner has been depressed permanently. He further submits that for the treatment of the life threatening blow, the injured had to be subjected to craniotomy. 3. Learned Counsel thus submits that the Trial Court be directed to commit the case to the Sessions Court for trial after adding the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. In the alternative learned Counsel submits that the petitioner be permitted to file an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Before the Trial Court for addition of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and the Trial Court be also directed to proceed against the Medical Officer for issuing a forged medical report for favouring the accused. 4. None is present for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 despite service. 5. On a bare perusal of the copy of medical opinion report dated 4.10.2010 submitted along with the miscellaneous petition, it is evident that the Medical Officer specifically mentioned in the report that the injury No. 1 of the petitioner was grievous in nature and dangerous to life. None is present for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 despite service. 5. On a bare perusal of the copy of medical opinion report dated 4.10.2010 submitted along with the miscellaneous petition, it is evident that the Medical Officer specifically mentioned in the report that the injury No. 1 of the petitioner was grievous in nature and dangerous to life. The corresponding medical opinion certificate dated 4.10.2010 available on the record of the Trial Court apparently shows that the words "but can not ascertain at level of in my opinion" have been added subsequently. The dimensions of the injury No. 1 on the parietal region of the injured were 8 cm. x. 2 cm. x. bone deep and the injury was caused by a sharp edged weapon. Thus, the injury is by a sharp weapon on the vital part of the body. The injured had to be subjected to craniotomy surgery, which prima facie shows the gravity of the injury caused on his head. Thus, it is apparent that the Investigating Officer committed grave error and conducted investigation in a mala fide fashion by not filing a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Prima facie the medical reports available on record disclose that the intention of the accused was to do away with the injured. The injured being a 65 years old man was inflicted a bone deep sharp weapon injury on his head. This fact leaves no room for doubt regarding intention of the accused. 6. Thus, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nokha is directed to add the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. To the case and then to commit the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner who shall either by himself or through any other competent Court have the trial of the case conducted as per law. The Trial Court shall also keep in mind that there is serious discrepancy in the two medical opinions referred to above for which explanation be sought from the Medical Officer concerned. If the facts so warrant and if the discrepancy remains unexplained, then the Trial Court shall be at liberty to direct appropriate action against the erring person/persons at the conclusion of the trial.The record be sent back forthwith.Petition allowed. *******