KALU RAGHAV Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is indeed astonishing and even shocking that important medical evidence also is taken in a light manner like this in sessions cases where the Court is required to decide the nature of the injuries and the cause of death. In the case on hand the Court had to decide whether injuries on the persons of Girvatsinh and Pradhyumansinh were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or they were likely to cause death. IT is true that under sec. 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 a provision has been inserted for the avoidance of unnecessary delay that where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused the contents thereof may be admitted by the other side and if such documents are admitted genuineness of such documents thereafter cannot be called in question. However the Legislature while enacting this provision must not have thought that this salutary provision would be abused in actual practice and the persons in-charge of the prosecution or the defence would make it the handle of their inaction or indifference. Sec. 296 of the Code in this connection deserves to be read and it shows that the evidence of any person if it is only of formal character may be given by an affidavit and subject to all just exceptions it would be read in any enquiry or trial under this Code. The underlying idea seems to be that the formality or proof of some documents may not unnecessarily hamper the smooth flow of the trial. But it could not have been envisaged that important witnesses like a Doctor who has examined patients would also be dispensed with by resort to this provision of sec. 294. We therefore emphasise the importance of medical evidence in such cases involving injuries and particularly fatal injuries and we insist that in all such cases the persons in-charge of prosecution or the defence would not tinker with the problem and leave the Court to decide the important questions by resorting to only surmises or conjectures on a technical subject like medical science. The Judges trying such cases have an important duty to perform and if they allow such short-cuts to be resorted to they would obviously be remiss in their judicial duties. The other day before us a case ended in conviction under sec. 304 Part II because there was no medical evidence showing that the injury in question was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. IT is to be noted that even the advocates in-charge of defence also have an important role to play in such trials. They cannot do away with the necessary pains of examining such witnesses by giving consent to admission of such documents without the important witnesses being examined. In the case on hand the learned advocates who were defending the accused also were remiss in their duties when they adopted the short cut method in this way and agreed to get the certificates of injuries and post-mortem notes admitted into evidence forthwith without exploring the pros and cons of the medical evidence

(2.) THE panchnama of the scene of offence also was admitted into evidence with the consent of the other side without the panch having come to be examined. THE said panchnama is ex. 28 on the record. What we have observed with respect to medical evidence would apply to such important evidence like the panchnama of the scene of offence also and such panchnamas and the evidence of the panch would have a material bearing in some cases particularly like the one before us.