S N VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Dr. S. N. Vyas under section 561-A Criminal P. C. praying for the expunction of certain remarks made against him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar in his judgment dated 30th April, 1965 in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1964 in which three persons Jangsingh, Gurdevsingh and Ramsingh were tried for offences under Sections 447, 304, 304 read with section 34, 324 and 325 Indian Penal Code and were acquitted on the plea of right of private defence.

(2.) THE case relates to an incident which happened on 27th April, 3964 at about 7 A. M. in Chak No. 20 STG. There was some dispute between the accused and Premsingh and Dhirsingh over the allotment of 7 bighas of land for temporary cultivation. On the date of the incident the three accused went to the land in dispute and began to uproot the crop sown by Premsingh and Dhirsingh and also to overplough it. Hamsingh, Mukhtiar, Premsingh, Dhirsingh along with Thakurram and Narsaram went to the place where the accused were uprooting the crop and prohibited them from doing so. This led to a fight between them in which Narsaram, Thakurram and Ramsingh were injured. As the remarks of the Additional Sessions Judge have been made in connection with the injuries to Narsaram 1 need only refer to the facts relating to his case. Nursaram was initially examined by Dr. O. P. Mehta, Doctor incharge of Hanumangarh Dispensary on 27-4-64. Dr. Mehta sent the injured for X-ray examination to Ganganagar. Dr. S. N. Vyas carried out the X-ray examination and sent three plates to Dr. O. P. Mehta but without giving his own reading of the X-ray plates. It may also be mentioned that injured Narsaram was admitted in the Ganganagar Hospital on 28th of April, 1964, and began to receive his treatment. He was discharged from the Hospital on 1st of May, 1964. On 9th of May he was again admitted as indoor patient in connection with a disease of bacillary dysentery. He, however, died on 15th of May, 1964. Dr. S. N. Vyas conducted post-mortem examination on 165-1964. In his postmortem report he noticed fracture of the skull bones-temporal and parietal. In the postmortem report Dr. Vyas mentioned the cause of death as under: "the basic reason of the death is head injury in this case but it has been precipitated by the acute bacillary dysentery. " Dr. Vyas was examined as PW/3 in the court of Additional Sessions Judge in the course of the trial on 2-12-64. There is some discrepancy to the date when Dr. S. N. Vyas was examined. The order sheet of 112-64 shows that although Dr. Vyas was present in Court he could not be examined on account of the absence of stenographer. The learned Judge further noticed in the proceedings that when the Doctor was initially called in for examination, he was not present and the case was adjourned to 2nd of December, 1964. The proceedings of 2nd December, 1964 shows that the Doctor's statement was recorded on that date. The date mentioned at the top of the statement is 1-12-64, although the Doctor while signing the statement mentioned the: date as 2-12-64. Thereafter, the evidence of other prosecution witnesses was recorded and the defence witnesses were examined. After the case was argued by the counsel for the parties it was reserved for judgment on 15-4-65. At the time of preparing the judgment the learned Judge felt the need of seeking some clarifications from the Doctor on the injuries noticed by him. He was, therefore, summoned as a court witness and was examined as CW/1 on 16-4-65.

(3.) IN the course of his judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge discussed in great detail the question relating to the cause of death as also the nature of the injuries received by the deceased Narsaram and their sufficiency in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and concluded that Narsaram had died due to the head injury caused by Jangsingh. During the course of discussions, the learned Judge made the following observations adversely affecting Dr. Vyas; "dr. Vyas throughout his statement tried to avoid definite answer on his opinion on any point. From the plain reading of his whole statement it appears that he tries to make everything doubtful. He has also avoided to read X-ray plate. From this, it infers that he did not want to make the case clear but to keep it doubtful forever for the reasons best known to him. From this trend of his statement it appears that either he is interested in the accused party or he is not aware of the duty of a Medical Jurist. " The learned Judge then referred to the statement of the witness that dysentery could not be the cause of death of Narsaram and expressed his inability to understand dysentery was connected with the cause of death. Observing that the Doctor ought to have frankly stated that the cause of death of Narsaram was the head injury and that it was grievous and was fatal, he expressed his disagreement with the witness's opinion that Narsaram could have survived had he not developed dysentery. Observing further that the postmortem examination is always done for knowing the cause of death of deceased, he remarked that Dr. Vyas could not fulfil his duty in this case. Thereafter, the learned Judge referred to a few facts in connection with the fracture of the temporal bone and the reading of the X-ray plates and inferred that the witness tried his utmost to keep the matter of fracture doubtful. He further referred to the statement of the witness that in his opinion the fracture of the skull bones may or may not be sufficient to cause the death of Narsaram in the ordinary course of nature and his answers in connection with the seriousnees of sub-dural haematoma and the comparative fatality of the sub-dural haematoma and extra-dural haematoma and observed that "in this way Dr. Vyas instead of helping the Court in coming to the right conclusion has made the case more complicated by his superfluous answers. Thus he has failed in the discharge of his duty as a Medical Jurist. " The Additional Sessions Judge, however, after devoting so much attention to the question as to the cause of death and the sufficiency of the injury to cause death in the ordinary course of nature ultimately acquitted the accused Jangsingh on the ground that he acted in the exercise of right of private defence. The order of acquittal does not appear to have been challenged by the State and has become final.