PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pal Singh son of Pritam Singh has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 24-12-1992 for offence under S. 302, of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also required to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred through jail.

(2.) Briefly, the story of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 30-6-1991/1-7-1991 Gurdip Singh armed with a Barchhi, Nand Singh armed with a sua and Pal Singh armed with a lathi came to the tubewell of the complainant where several persons including Banta Singh were asleep. Pal Singh gave a lathi blow on the jaw of Banta Singh and several other injuries were caused by the other two accused who have been declared proclaimed offenders from the very beginning. After recording the evidence of Pratap Singh, the complainant and Chanohal Singh, his another brother-two eye witnesses, and the statement of the Investigating Officer, the trial Court recorded the conviction without examining the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem examination.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has pointed out that in this case the trial Court has not examined Dr. Gurmanjit Singh when he came to the Court as a witness for the prosecution and instead kept the postmortem report on the file giving it the shape of Exhibit PA in as much as the accused had no objection to the placing of postmortem report on the record. Placing of the postmortem report on record without examining the medical officer who conducted the post mortem examination did not fulfil the requirement of law. In Jagdeo Singh v. State, 1979 Cri LJ 236, it was observed that the notes of the post mortem examination popularly known as postmortem examination report were nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by the Medical Officer while performing the post mortem examination on the dead body. It was only a kind of previous statement of the Medical Officer based on his examination of the deadbody. In fact, we are of the view that it is the statement of the Medical Officer made on oath in the Court which alone could be treated as substantive piece of evidence. A similar question arose before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ganpat Raoji Suryavanshi v. The State of Maharashtra 1980 Cri LJ 853 and the relevant paras of this authority are reproduced as under :-