Jaspal Singh vs State of Punjab

J.B. Garg, J.

Jaspal Singh a Medical Officer of P.C.M.S. ClassII, District Patiala has moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the adverse observations made by Shri S.S. Tiwana, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, while delivering judgment in the case arising out of FIR No. 20 dated 1261985 of Police Station, Julkan for offences under Sections 307/323 read with Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, on 2291988 be expunged.

The strictures recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in the aforesaid judgment, which find mention in para No. 7 of the present petition, are reproduced hereunder :

"The conduct of Dr. Jaspal Singh has, therefore, to be outrightly deprecated as unbecoming to a noble profession."

"And the medical evidence on record shows that a lot of bungling was done by Dr. Jaspal Singh (PW2) who conducted medical legal examinations of the injured to make out a case that the three injured sustained firearms injuries..."

There were as many as 22 accused in this case. The cause or motive for the occurrence appears to be that the accused wanted to divert the flow of water towards the lower level in the vicinity but it affected the house of Gurdev Singh and for this purpose the accused were removing the brick pavment in the street Interalia, the version of prosecution was that Ujagar Singh fired a shot from his gun which hit Jaswant Singh on his left arm, left leg and thigh. Bhagwan Singh fired a shot with his gun which hit Harnek Singh on his leg and thigh and another shot by the same assailant hit Gurdev Kaur on her leg. During investigation when the accused were arrested on 1661985 licensed guns were recovered from Ujagar Singh and Bhagwan Singh. it appears that the fire arms, though recovered, were never got examined from a ballistic expert. However, no wads or pellets were seized from the place of occurrence during investigation.

There is very important piece of evidence which naturally prompted the petitionerMedical Officer to record that injuries could result from a fire arm inasmuch as PW 1 Dr. Gandarn Singh, Radiologist of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, who conducted the Xray examination of the injured persons had specifically observed that there were dense radio opaque foreign body resembling pellets as per Xray examination reports Ex. PA, PB and PC which were recorded by him. These observations of this Radiologist relate to Jaswant Singh, Hakam Singh and Gurdev Kaur the three injured, of which a detailed mention finds in para No. 5 of the judgment of the trial Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that where there was an xray examination and the Radiologist who was specialist of this subject observed dense radio opaque foreign metal `resembling pellets'', the trial Court was not justified in condemning the Medical Officer Dr. Jaspal Singh, the present petitioner who was comparatively new regarding medicolegal examinations. It was a different matter that the police did not care or could not bring on record the ballastic report etc. though the firearms were taken into possession, brought to the Court and were also given the shape of exhibits. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan, AIR 1975 SC 1741 wherein three prerequisites laid down in State of U.P. v. Muhammad Nain, AIR 1964 SC 703 were referred to which are as under:

"(i) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself.

(ii) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and

(iii) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve."

Here in this hurt case the Xray examination was conducted and it depicted and contained a specific presence of dense radio opeaque foreign body resembling pellets and it is obvious that the test laid down at (ii) and (iii) above were not fulfilled.

The petitioner medical Officer in his crossexamination in the trial Court has deposed that he did not feel any pellets at the time of the medical examination of the injured.

The learned counsel for the State of Punjab has pointed out that a departmental enquiry is also pending against the Medical Officer. At the same time it also appears to be pending against the Radiologist whose report was relied upon by the petitioner.

In the circumstances of the case, it is held that the learned trial Court was not justified in condemning the petitioner while acquitting the accused. The conclusion is that the present petition is accepted and the adverse observations made against the petitioner Medical Officer, which find mention in para No. 7 of the petition, are deleted from the impugned judgment.