DARMARAJ Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANUPARPALAYAM POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a classic case of denial of fair trial which is a well cherished and a precious Fundamental Right guaranteed under the Constitution of India to an accused facing prosecution in respect of certain offences alleged to have been committed by him.

(2.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 110 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Coimbatore, at Tirupur. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 452, 393 read with 398 IP.C. He denied the charges and therefore, the trial Court proceeded with the trial.

(3.) From the records, it could be seen that a learned Member of Tirupur Bar Association was engaged as the counsel by the appellant and accordingly, he was on record. The case was listed for examination of witnesses on 5.4.2004. On that day, totally, six witnesses were present on summons, including the Doc- tor, who treated the victim of the crime. The learned Sessions Judge commenced the examination of P.W. 1 at 12.32 p.m. on 5.4.2004. Here, I have to mention that the records would show that the learned Sessions Judge has meticulously recorded the time of commencement of chief-examination of each witness and the time at which, the chief examination of each witness was concluded, the time at which the cross-examination was commenced in respect of each witness and the time at which the cross-examination was concluded in respect of each witness. Coming back to the examination of P.W. 1, he is the Doctor, who treated the victim. The learned Sessions Judge has adopted an irregular procedure of examining the Doctor, who treated the injured to speak about the injuries first, instead of examining the injured. The most important substantive piece of evidence in respect of the occurrence would be that of the injured. The evidence of the Doctor shall only be corroborative in nature only in order to test the truthfulness of the version spoken to by the injured witness, the medical evidence let in. Therefore, as a part of fair trial to be afforded to the accused, it is always necessary that the injured witness or in cases where there are eye witnesses, they should be examined first and then only the Doctor should be examined. But, in this case, curiously, the learned Sessions Judge had permitted the prosecution to examine the Doctor first. This is not in consonance with the fair trial to be afforded to the accused.