P.K.KARTHIKEYAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of proceedings made in the previous listing on 18/2/2025, which read as follows:

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further advanced his arguments by relying upon the following decisions:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. to summon Medical Officer, Primary Health Care, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District, the Chief Doctor, Dharmapuri Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri District, the Inspector of Police, V&AC Wing, Dharmapuri District and to produce the general diary for the months of December 2017 and January 2018 and the Trap Laying Officer's letter sent to Karimangalam Tahsildar on 8/1/2018. The Trial Court had given a finding that the petitioner is not entitled to peruse the general diary. Further, the Trial Court held that the letter of the TLO to Tahsildar, Karimangalam had been marked as exhibit by the prosecution and the High Court by order dtd. 10/12/2021 in Crl.O.P.No.17559 of 2021 directed the Trial Court to dispose the case within one year. He would submit that the period had been further extended for six months by this Court by order dtd. 9/11/2013 which was weighed heavily on the Trial Court in dismissing the petition which is not proper. He would further submit that the Trial Court failed to understand the difference between the case diary and general diary. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kalaiselvam and the Kerala High Court in the case of Shiju P.T. had clearly held the difference between the Police Station diary and the case diary. Hence, summoning of general diary cannot be denied. Further, the petitioner filing a petition at the time of defence is a statutory right which cannot be denied. The petitioner during the cross examination of the relevant witness made a ground for summoning the documents which had been completely overlooked. Hence, sought for setting aside the impugned order. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated his earlier contention and referring to the Remand Order submitted that the Trial Judge while remanding the accused on 4/1/2018 visited the petitioner in the Government Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri in the presence of Dr.Ganesamoorthy and since the accused was unable to communicate orally, the Deputy Superintendent of Police was directed to report after the petitioner starts communicating. Thereafter when the petitioner's health condition improved and fit for remand, the Magistrate again visited the petitioner in the Hospital in the presence of Dr.Ganesamoorthy, the petitioner was enquired but at that time, the petitioner had not made any complaint against the Police and after explaining the grounds for arrest, he was remanded till 18/1/2018. On the same day, bail application was filed but in the bail application, initially there was no complaint of physical assault. But later the counsel with his intelligence had hand written about the physical assault as "The petitioner was severely beaten up by the V&AC Police and was admitted to GH, Dharmapuri" which is a clear after thought for the purpose of bail and to create a defence. He further submitted that the documents which was sought for by the petitioner is almost seven years now and the general diary is not available. He would further submit that the petitioner was taken to Primary Health Care Centre, Karimangalam and thereafter, he was taken to Dharmapuri Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri where he took treatment, all recorded in the remand requisition and remand order and there is no other medical documents. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning o,f admission and medical reports of the petitioner at Primary Health Care, Karimangalam and Dharmapuri Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri District, production of general diary maintained in V&AC Office at Dharmapuri for the months of December 2017 and January 2018 and TLO's letter to Tahsildar, Karimangalam dtd. 8/1/2018. The summoning of medical records is to show that the petitioner was beaten badly by the respondent police. In the impugned order, it is recorded that the petitioner was caught red handed and due to sudden shock, the petitioner lost his conscious and he was referred to Hospital. There is no material for the respondent police to have beaten the petitioner. With regard to TLO's letter to Tahsildar, Karimangalam, the Tahsildar was examined as P.W.11 who had stated that on 3/1/2018 at about 7.00 p.m., the petitioner was caught red handed in the defacto complainant's field and P.W.11 went there along with the files as sought for by the TLO. Thus, explanation given as to how the Tahsildar had come to the spot. As regards the general diary, the Trial Court held that the petitioner is not entitled for the general which is not proper. The general diary is of the year 2017-2018 and the petitioner filed the petition eight years thereafter but no reason given for such a delay in filing the petition. Further, the Trial Court misunderstood the difference between the general diary and the case diary. There is a prohibition for entitlement of Police diaries under Sec. 172(3) Cr.P.C., which is in common parlance called as Case diary but there is no restriction for summoning general diary. In this case, the general diary is summoned after seven years and it is not available now. As regards the medical records, in the remand requisition it is recorded that the petitioner suddenly felt giddiness, he was taken to Government Community Health Centre, Karimangalam for treatment and thereafter, he was taken to Dharmapuri Government Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri on 4/1/2018 at 00.30 hours for further treatment and the Remanding Magistrate was requested to visit the Hospital. Thereafter, the Magistrate went to the Hospital and finding that the petitioner was not in a position to communicate not remanded him and advised for further medical treatment. Thereafter, at about 1.40 p.m. on receipt of request from TLO along with Dr.Ganesamoorthy, verified the health condition of the petitioner and thereafter, remanded him to judicial custody till 18/1/2018. It is also recorded in the remand order that there is no complaint against the Police. Since the health condition and medical treatment particulars of the petitioner recorded in the remand requisition and the remand order, summoning of medical records is not required. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. 6.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.