THATHI ARUL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners against whom a charge had been filed under sections 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the Judicial Second Class Magistrate�s Court, Ponneri in C.C.No.372 of 1984 have filed the above petition for quashing the prosecution on the following grounds:

(2.) Since as per the evidence on record the prosecution case is bound to fail, the proceedings before the lower Court will have to be quashed. The prosecution case as stated in the first information report is that on 21.8.84 at about 1.30 p.m. the petitioners came in a car with iron rods in the hands of each one of them, stopped before the complainant�s rice mill, called the persons working there, namely, Jayapal the driver, Jacob Durai and Munuswami, and when they came the petitioners asked them as to the whereabout of Jaisingh to which they replied that they did not know and on hearing the same the first petitioner is alleged to have attacked Jayapal with iron rod on his left shoulder. The third petitioner also attacked Jacob Durai with his belt on his right neck. The second petitioner attacked Munuswami with iron rod on his back. 2. When all the three of them were taken for medical examination, according to the statement of the doctor who conducted the medical examination, the injured seems to have stated that they were attacked with hands by three known persons and no mention had been made about the iron rods which all the three petitioners were said to have carried at the time of the perpetuation of the offence.

(3.) If the statement made to the doctor is of any probative value then the prosecution case is bound to fail. As per the Judgments of the Supreme Court reported in H.H. Bharucha v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) Crl.L.J. 969: (1977) S.C.C. (Crl.) 557: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1213, Mohanlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1982) 1 S.C.C. 700: (1982) S.C.C. (Crl.) 334: (1982) M.L.J. (Crl.) 431: (1982) 1 S.C.J. 380: A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 839 and Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (1979) Crl.L.J. 26: (1978) 4 S.C.C. 425: (1978) S.C.C. (Crl.) 561: A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 22, the version of the doctor giving wound certificate regarding the incident as narrated to him is also admissible in evidence under the provisions of the Evidence Act. In this case the statement made to the doctor is diametrically opposed to the statement made in the first information report and such even from the evidence on record it can be said that the prosecution is bound to fail.