VINOD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13.9.99 passed by the Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial no. 749/96, convicting each of the appellant under section 323 IPC, sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 6 months and pay fine of Rs. 250/ - in default of payment of fine each of them to undergo R.I. for one month each, have filed this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief was that the complainant PW.1 Madan had given five rupee note to accused Netram for purchasing a bidi. The said accused returned four one rupee note to the complainant but as the notes were torn and were bad in shape, the complainant refused to accept the said currency notes and asked for good money, on which Netram started abusing the complainant. On complainant's request that his money be returned back accused Netram and the other accused who are having their shops nearby started beating the complainant by hands, fists etc. According to the complainant, the police constable had come on the spot and the complainant was taken to the police station but the police did not take his report. Thereafter he was brought to the hospital where also he was informed that he was absolutely all right and accordingly he was not treated. Suffering severe pains, the complainant went to the M.L.A. of the locality who persuaded the police to take the report. Thereafter the complainant was sent for his medical examination. He was again examined by the doctors and was admitted in the hospital. One Dr. Prem Bahadur Punnu examined the complainant and reported that the injuries suffered by the complainant were dangerous to life as the complainant had suffered rupture in the spleen. On completion of the investigation, the prosecution agency filed the challan against the accused persons. The learned trial court on conclusion of the trial, acquitted each of the appellant for offences punishable under section 307/34 IPC but however convicted them under section 323 IPC and sentenced them as referred to above. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences, the appellants have filed this appeal.

(3.) IF the procedural law is read it would show that the same is made in the interest and for the benefit of the accused. On one side the report of the complainant is not recorded and on the other hand the complainant is required to approach a political/powerful man so that in this system he may get some justice or some solace. The doctors who are under the oath to treat the patient have acted in such a platonic manner as if they were not the doctors but ordinary Govt. Servants. It is expected in the system that a person who goes to the police station is permitted to state his case and his report is recorded in its true perspective. Even if the present was a case under section 323 IPC, the police was required to register the case without intervention of the M.L.A., so that the wrong doers were brought to the book. The system says that the accused must be benefited by every lapse committed by the prosecution but says nothing in favour of the sufferer. On one side the report of the complainant is not recorded right in time and on the other hand the accused says that there was unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. A fortunate complainant if gets his report recorded cannot ask the investigating officer to investigate in a particular manner. He can't ask the Investigating Officer to examine particular person as a witness because the choice is given to the Investigating Officer and he is the master for investigation. If the complainant wants to engage a private lawyer so that he may get complete justice, the procedural law does not permit him to engage a private counsel to conduct his case and if he is permitted to engage a private counsel, then such counsel can only help and assist the public prosecutor. The accused is absolutely free to engage a counsel of his choice or he may even change a counsel as and when he wants. No option has been given to the complainant to examine the witnesses. He cannot even ask the Government Pleader to summon and examine the witnesses. The choice is given to the public prosecutor to examine the witnesses as he wants. If the complainant asks the court to examine a particular witness, such witness shall not be examined by the court unless the public prosecutor makes a request to the court. The conduction of the case is left in the hands of the public prosecutor, defence counsel and the Judge. The public prosecutor may give up the witnesses, and no body is ready to see whether such person is an important witness or not. The Court is simply happy if witnesses are given up because its burden of recording evidence is reduced. But, is it not for the court conducting the trial to see whether such request of giving up witnesses is to be allowed or some fetter are put on powers of public prosecutor. Non availability of the witnesses may some times persuade the public prosecutor to give up the witness but the court can't be a silent spectator to the drama going in the court. Should we have a trial in the Court or a farce in the name of the trial. Is it not the duty of the Presiding Officer to see that the summons are issued in accordance with its directions or should it feel content by writing 'that the summons be issued positively'. Even if it burdens the court's work the Presiding Officer can't be permitted to say that he would not observe his own proceedings should the fate of the case be left in the hands of the public prosecutor and the defence or the judge should press his authority. When summons are not issued despite directions of the court and lapses, is it fair. Is it not a slur on the system that the crime goes unpunished and the victim is not heard at all. What would a victim think about the system. It would not be out of place to mention that each of these persons is absolutely indifferent as none of them have suffered the pains of the injuries. Each is happy that something is being done in the matter.