Dr. V. Rajeswar Raju vs State of Orissa

S.C. Mohapatra, J.—This is an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for expunging remarks of the trial Court against the Petitioner who was a prosecution witness.

Observation of the trial Court in the judgment reads as follows:

.... In this connection, it is worthwhile to mention that p. w. 9 being a Doctor who is supposed to deal with human lives, if commits such mistakes as per his admission in his evidence that mistakenly he mentioned the injury on the right hand ring finger instead of left hand ring finger, he should not be given any excuse for commission of such mistake. And it is high time for him to be removed from the Government service for which the Central and State Medical Boards are to be referred.

Petitioner is a Doctor. He examined the injured. In his report, he stated that the injury was on the right hand ring finger which he admitted as p. w. 9 to be a mistake for the left finger, learned Magistrate not only disbelieved him but also other witnesses to the occurrence and acquitted the accused. There can be no doubt that mistake of a Doctor in the Certificate does not speak well of him. How the same would be viewed by his employer or the authority permitting him to be a Medical Expert is not a consideration for the Court while making observations which are not necessary to assess his evidence. In such circumstance, it is to be examined whether the remark is to be expunged from the judg-ment which would not mutilate the judgment in any manner.

Fact that the expunging of remark against a witness in a judgment will not mutilate the judgment should not be the sole considerations where the Court giving the remark has carefully deliberate land had given the remark. Court while adjudicating a particular question, has also duty towards the society and where it is satisfied that the witness is to be commented upon for benefit of the society, it can give such remarks. In so giving. Court is to weigh the effect of the remarks on the witness with the benefit to be achieved by the Society.

In the present case, trial Court has not given any finding that the mistake was committed by the Petitioner to help the accused. Court could have only brought the mistake to the notice of the employer and the statutory disciplinary authority by sending either the judgment on the evidence for their action where Petitioner could have got the opportunity to explain the circumstances under which he committed the mistake. If the employer or the statutory authorities would not have been satisfied, they could have dealt with the Petitioner to the best of their judgment. Court should not have given remarks encroaching upon the jurisdiction of such authorities where it was possible to be avoided.

Whether remarks would be expunged being within the inherent power of this Court, the facts and circumstances are to be considered. As I have discussed, trial court while was justified in disbelieving the Petitioner as p. w. 9 for the mistake committed by him, was not sober in expression of the remarks. It also encroached upon the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authorities and Petitioners right of getting opportunity to explain to his authorities for a just decision by them.

In the premises discussed, while expunging the remarks, I direct the learned Magistrate to forward a copy of this order to the authorities in case his judgment has already been forwarded. I have no doubt that the authorities shall give due consideration to the mistake committed by Petitioner keeping in mind the impact of such mistake on the society and the profession without being influenced by the remark which is expunged hereby.

In the result, remarks are expunged subject to the aforesaid observation.

Ordered accordingly.