MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sharma argued that besides the provisions of S. 54 Cr. P.C. being very clear; there have been directions given by the Supreme Court that even in cases where accused does not make any such prayer, it was the duty of the court where such an accused is produced, particularly when he is unassisted by a counsel to inform him of his right to have medical examination and then proceed to direct medical examination in case any accused makes such a request. He cited judgment in the case of Sheela Barse vs. State 1983 Crimes 602 (S.C.), where their Lordships taking notice of number of matters of procedure, concerning treatment of undertrial prisoners, had incorporated a clear cut direction in the judgment to this effect.

(2.) Mr. Khan did not offer any comments in face of the mandate contained in the Supreme Court judgment. He however confirmed that it was in fact a practice with number of Metropolitan Magistrates where such requests when made are being declined and it is a fit matter where some directions for general guidance of all the Metropolitan Magistrates are issued.

(3.) A reading of S. 54 Cr. P.C. makes it abundantly clear that whenever a person after being arrested is produced before a Magistrate and alleges at any time during the period of his detention during custody that the examination of his body will afford evidence which will disprove the commission by him of any offence or which will establish the commission by any other person of any offence against his body, the Magistrate shall, if requested by the arrested person so to do direct the examination of the body of such person by a registered medical practitioner unless the Magistrate considers that the request is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or far defeating the ends of justice. (emphasis supplied),