Rameswar Singh vs Emperor

This application, in our view, is entitled to succeed on one point namely that the trial Court bas contravened the provision of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

It appears that on the 28th July, 1920, the complainant and two witnesses on behalf of the complainant were examined in chief. Charge was framed against the accused on that date and the accused was examined under the provision of Section 342 on the same day. On the 2nd August the complainant and his witnesses were cross-examined, and on the 13th September the Medical Officer was examined, and on behalf of the prosecution, it was urged before us in the first place that the trial Court should have examined the accused not only after the examination-in-chief of the complainant and his two witnesses but after their cross-examination and re-examination; and in any case the Court should not have put any questions to the accused until ail the witnesses inducing the Medical Officer had been examined in the case. It is, in our view, unnecessary to deal with the first question which is of some doubt and difficulty : but in view of the decision in the case of Raghu Bhumij v. The King Emperor (1920) 5 P. L. J. 430=58 I. C. 49=1 P.L.T. 241 the conviction is liable to be set aside in view of the fact that the trial Court put the question to the accused person before the Doctor was examined. It was urged on behalf of the opposite party that the whole object of putting questions to the accused person is to enable him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, and the trial Court substantially performs its duty in putting questions to the accused persons after all the material witnesses for the prosecution have been examined. It was further urged that the medical evidence is purely formal evidence as there is no circumstance in that evidence against the accused person, the Court was within the rights not to wait for that evidence. We do not think that this argument is admissible in view of the decision to which we have already referred. Apart from that we cannot say as a general rule that medical evidence is always formal and where the Legislature says definitely that the Court shall put questions to the accused person generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, it is not an admissible argument that the Court may do so before all the prosecution witnesses have been examined. We would therefore set aside the conviction of the petitioner and direct that he be retried according to law.