VIRISINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under S. 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Mathura dated 16-3-91 passed in Criminal appeal No. 1 of 1985. The learned Sessions Judge by the said order remanded the case to the Court of Asstt. Sessions Judge IV, Mathura to a summon and examine Dr. O. S. Varma, Radiologist, the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, who had examined the injured witnesses of the case. The Court specifically permitted the accused persons to cross examine the said witnesses. The Court had directed that the evidence so recorded may be forwarded to the Court of Session within three months from the date of the said order. The Court was pleased to fix 2-4-91 for appearance of the informant-complainant and accused persons before the Court of IV Asstt. Sessions Judge in pursuance of the remand order.

(2.) This application under S. 482, Cr.P.C. was filed before the Registrar on 10/07/1991 and was put up for orders and admission on next date. The petitioner has nowhere stated in the affidavit whether the order of remand dated 17/03/1991 has already been given effect to and evidence recorded in pursuance of the said order or not.

(3.) On merit, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the copies of the injury report, x-ray report had been filed by the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused person have not disputed the genuiness of the said documents before the Court in accordance with the provisions of S. 294 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel submitted that since the genuinenes of the documents aforementioned were not disputed by the accused persons, the learned Sessions Judge had committed a manifest error of law in remanding the case to the Court of IV Addl. Sessions Judge for examining the Doctor, Radiologist and the I.O. It was also stated that none of the parties ever argued or suggested that case be remanded for examination and cross-examination of the said witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge in the order impugned recorded finding to the effect that there was variance and contradiction in the ocular statements of the witnesses and the medical report. The I. O. had not stated nor there is any evidence to the effect that the blood-stained clothes were sent for chemical examination, the learned Sessions Judge recorded clear finding to the effect that it was necessary in the ends of justice to examine the witnesses to clarify the cloud. The learned Judge was of the view that it was necessary in arriving at a correct decision of the case to have the aforementioned evidence before the Court. The learned Judge was perfectly correct and justified in directing the trial Court to record the said statements. The learned counsel for the applicant is wrong in making the submission that once the counsel for the accused accepted the genuineness of the injury report and the report of the Radiologist, the Court had no jurisdiction or authority to call for the further evidence by permitting the accused person to cross-examine the Doctor, Radiologist and the Invstigating officer. The mere fact that the genuineness of the injury and Radiologist reports was not disputed, does not mean that the jurisdiction of the Court to ascertain the truth and arrive at a correct legal decision, is ousted. The provision of S. 294, Cr. P.C. if examined in its correct perspective, it would show that such document whose genuiness is not disputed, may be led in evidence in enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure without proof of signature of the person by whom it perports to be signed. The intention of the Legislature in introducing this provision u/S. 294, Cr. P.C. was to eliminate the formal procedure of proving the mere signature on such documents in trial, enquiry or any other proceedings, which used to take sufficient time previously as there was no such provision in the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure. The proviso to S. 294, Cr. P.C. is also relevant. The Court has been given the discretion under the proviso to require such signatures to be proved, the proviso thus indicate that the discretion of the Court is still available to the Court to get a document proved, if it so considers.