JAMIL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.8.1979 passed by Sri Munni Lal, II Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial no. 24 of 1976 (Crime No. 483 of 1976) State v. Jamil and Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1978 State v. Aziz Ahmed and Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1978 State v. Jamil whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 332 I.P.C., under Sec. 324/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and further two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- under the offences respectively. Both the appellants have been further convicted and sentenced to six months R.I. under section 25 Arms Act.

(2.) I have heard Sri J.N. Chaturvedi learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Sri R.S. Sanger Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the doctor who examined the injuries of the two injured persons, was not examined by the prosecution and as such the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identification of the injured persons which makes their presence doubtful at the time and place of the occurrence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has replied that the medical doctor who examined the injuries of Rajpal Singh (P.W. 3) and Yashpal Singh (P.W. 1), was not produced by the prosecution for the reason that the genuineness of the injury reports was admitted by the learned defence counsel before the trial Court and the injury reports prepared by the doctor were tendered in evidence by the prosecution. Further the injured Yashpal Singh, P.W. 1 and Rajpal Singh, P.W. 3 was also examined on oath and they have proved the fact that they received injuries in the alleged incident and therefore the injuries were examined by the doctor. In view of the evidence of the injured witnesses corroborated by the recitals in the injury reports Exts. Ka 14 and Ext. Ka 15, it is not at all doubtful that the injured witnesses had received injuries as described by the doctor in his reports which were prepared in the ordinary course of the discharge of public duties by a government doctor. Therefore the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the non production of the medical officer has made the prosecution case doubtful is not convincing and is not acceptable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the complainant Saeed Ahmad, who had scribed the first information report Ext. Ka 1, was not produced by the prosecution and the first information report on the basis of which prosecution case is founded, has not been proved in the eye of law. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has replied that the first information report was proved by the constable Yashpal Singh C/349, P.W. 1 who worked as a colleague of the scribe Saeed Ahmed C/61 at the same police station and who saw him writing and signing in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The first information report could be proved by the evidence of a person is whose presence, the Scribe had written and signed. I find that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is right. The testimony of Yashpal Singh, injured (P.W. 1) who was a constable at police station Ganj, Rampur, has been able to prove the first information report which has been marked as Ext. Ka 1. The non-production of the Scribe Saeed Ahmad does not therefore, affect the veracity of the injured witness Yashpal Singh, P.W. 1 and does not cast any shadow of doubt on the foundation of the prosecution case. The Indian Evidence Act prescribes more than one ways for proving a fact either by oral evidence or by documentary evidence. Therefore the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable.