D.R. RAJARAM Vs. LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for appellant. The learned counsel for accused is absent.

(3.) 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.