KAMALUDDIN AHMAD Vs. ADDI SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions u/Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. have been filed by the two doctors for expunging the remarks made against them by the I AddI. Sessions Judge, Faizabad in his judgment while deciding the Sessions Trial No. 423/88 State v. Yadunath and OtheRs.

(2.) Accused Yadunath and others were prosecuted in a case under Sections 302, 323,148,147 IPC by the police of P.S. Ibrahimpur, District Faizabad. It is said that Dr. Kamaluddin Ahmad examined the injuries of Ram Adhar injured on 27-10-1986 and prepared an injury report. The said Ram Adhar died and, therefore, autopsy was conducted by Dr. Indra Dec Mall on 2-11-1986. Dr. Kamaluddin Ahmad was summoned as court witness, whereas Dr. Indra Deo Mall was examined as PW 6. The learned I AddI. Sessions Judge, Faizabad after recording the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, he acquitted the accused-persons. While acquitting the accused persons, the learned trial Judge disbelieved the eye witnesses and recorded a finding that it is clear that deceased Ram Adhar received injuries either due to some accident or he received injuries somewhere else. He specifically recorded finding that he did not die due to injuries caused in the incident. He further disbelieved the case of the prosecution regarding demolition of the cattle-shed as well as the FIR: However, while acquitting the accused persons the learned trial Judge made some remarks against these two doctors who examined Ram Adhar (deceased) during his life time as well as after death. Dr. Kamaluddin Ahmad examined the injuries of Ram Adhar on 27-10-1986, whereas, the incident took place on 24-10-1986 at about 4 p.m. The AddI. Sessions Judge pointed out that in the post mortem report, it is mentioned that 8th, 9th and 10th ribs of deceased Ram Adhar were broken and lungs were tom but surprisingly, these injuries were not mentioned by Dr. Kamaluddin Ahmad in the injury report. Secondly, it is pointed out that there was enough swelling on chest & neck of the deceased but the same did not even mentioned by the Dr. Kamaluddin Ahmad. The petitioner filed a copy of the injury report as Annexure No.3 which shows the following injuries:

(3.) Similarly, the I AddI. Sessions Judge, Faizabad while deciding the trial has also made some adverse remarks against Dr. Indra Deo Mall who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Ram Adhar. According to the, trial Judge, there was a fracture of right arm and septicised wound on the head was found by Dr. K.U. Ahmad. The said injuries have also been mentioned by Dr. K.U. Ahmad in his injury report. The learned trial Judge further pointed out that in the inquest report the presence of stitches were mentioned on the right fore-arm of the deceased but this injury was not mentioned by Dr. Indra Deo Mall in his post mortem report. It may be pointed out here that the injury report as well as the Bed-Head Ticket are on the record. Nowhere it is said that there was some stitches on the right arm. In fact there is nothing on the record to show that the right arm was stitched by the doctor who examined the injuries or thereafter, in the hospital. In these circumstances, it is surprising as to how the Investigating Officer has mentioned in the inquest report that there are stitches on the right fore-arm. It is also alleged that there was some injury on the right eye and the same has been mentioned in the inquest report by the police but the same did not find mention in the post-mortem report. Again, it is pointed out that Dr. I.D. Mall was not confronted with the injury report prepared by Dr. K.U. Ahmad as well as inquest report prepared by the Police Officer. In fact neither Dr. I.D. Mall nor Dr. K. U. Ahmad has been given any opportunity to explain the inconsistencies mentioned by the trial Judge. If there was any inconsistency or discrepancies in the injury report or the post mortem report, the doctors must have been given an opportunity to explain these defects before making any observations against them.