D.R. Rajaram vs Lakshminarayana

N. Ananda, J.—Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (accused Nos. 1 to 3) were tried and acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Therefore, victim of the offence namely Dr. Rajaram (P.W.1) has filed this appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for appellant. The learned counsel for accused is absent.

The learned Sessions Judge has concluded the trial without examining medical officer namely C.W.9-Dr. M. Sreedhar. After going through the order sheet, we find that learned Sessions Judge had not taken proper steps to secure C.W.9 before Court. It is needless to state that C.W.9 was a Doctor working in R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre, Kolar. C.W.9 had fixed place of work and abode.

It is seen from impugned judgment that learned Sessions Judge has held that there is no consistency between direct evidence and medical evidence. The defence has also contended that P.W.1 (appellant herein) had suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident during the year 2007 and those injuries have been made use to initiate instant prosecution. Admittedly, the offence alleged to have been committed against person of P.W.1-Dr. Rajaram and P.W.3-Ravi. In the circumstances, it was the duty of learned Sessions Judge to secure medical officer to record his evidence regarding injuries suffered by P.W.1 and P.W.3 and treatment given by him. It is needless to state that wound certificate cannot be read as evidence under Section 294 Cr.P.C. more particularly when the accused have disputed the genuineness of wound certificate. The learned Sessions Judge has read contents of wound certificate as per-se evidence. When accused were tried for committing offences affecting human body, learned Sessions Judge should have recorded medical evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has discredited the evidence of injured witnesses for not being consistent with the contents of wound certificate.

In a decision reported in State of Karnataka Vs. Kallappa Somanna Kamble and Others, , this Court has held that examination of medical officer is necessary to prove the nature of injuries and also to record finding whether ocular evidence is consistent or inconsistent with the medical evidence.

In our considered opinion, the trial conducted by learned Sessions Judge is not complete. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and remand the matter to learned Sessions Judge to record evidence of medical officer namely C.W.9-Dr. M. Sreedhar. If he is not amenable to the process of Court or if he is dead, the Trial Court shall examine his contemporaries or other medical officers to prove the contents of wound certificates relating to P.W.1-Dr. Rajaram and P.W.3-Ravi.

In the result, we pass the following:

"ORDER

The appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment of acquittal is set aside. The matter is remanded for aforestated limited purpose. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of case.

Office is directed to send back the records with a copy of this judgment to the Trial Court.

The Trial Court shall complete examination of medical witnesses as aforestated. The accused are at liberty to adduce defence evidence to rebut medical evidence to be adduced by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge shall decide the case afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment."