Allahabad High Court
Chhabiraj vs State Of U.P. on 19 December, 2012
Bench: Ajai Lamba
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 26
Crl. Misc. Case No.6750 (B) of 2012.
Chhabiraj Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
1. Applicant prays for bail in Case Crime No.286 of 2012 under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Chanda, District Sultanpur.
2. For brevity sake, order dated 19.10.2012 is extracted here below :-
"1. Allegation in the F.I.R. is that the applicant and his co accused way laid the injured. A long scarf was put around the neck of the injured whereupon the injured became unconscious. The accused then lay down the injured on the railway track.
2. So as to see whether prima facie the allegations are correct or not, a reference is required to be made to the medico legal report. Medical report (photo copy) and its typed copy have been placed on record as Annexure No.SA-2.
3. Photo copy of the medical report has been authored in C.H.C., Pratappur, Kamaicha, Chanda, District Sultanpur. Because photo copy is not readable, obviously, the typed copy would not depict the correct picture.
4. The relevance of medico legal report in cases of hurt, homicide or suicide is enormous. In a case of incised wound, the injury depicted in the medico legal report/post mortem report can clarify whether the knife was sharp on one side or both sides ; the size of the blade ; the force with which the knife has been thrust in the body and the direction from which the knife has been thrust. Likewise, in blunt injuries, explanation of the injury in the medico legal report speaks volumes about the manner in which the injury might have been caused. It assists the Court in formulating an opinion in regard to the manner in which an incident might have taken place.
5. The judicial system is facing serious problems because ocular testimony is given only by interested witnesses. There is always an apprehension in the mind of the Court that the ocular version might be false so as to falsely implicate the accused or make the offence more serious by way of exaggerating the role of the accused. The number of accused is also increased so as to implicate the entire family/friends.
6. The medico legal report, if given clearly, can either endorse the incident as given by the eye witnesses or can disprove the incident to a great extent. This is only possible if a detailed and clear medico legal report is furnished by the doctors, with complete responsibility. The medical reports, however, are written in such shabby handwriting that they are not readable and decipherable by advocates or Judges. It is to be considered that the Medico Legal reports and Post Mortem Reports are prepared to assist the persons involved in dispensation of criminal justice. If such a report is readable by medical practitioners only, it shall not serve the purpose for which it is made. This is despite the fact that computers are available in all medical facilities. In some of the States, practice is being followed where medico legal reports and post mortem reports are made on computers/printers.
7. Let Director General of Medical & Health, U.P. remain present in Court on 6.11.2012 alongwith author of the medical report as inscribed in Case Crime No.286 of 2012, under Section 307, Police Station Chanda, District Sultanpur.
8. Let a copy of this order be conveyed to the concerned authority through Shri Anurag Varma, Additional Government Advocate."
3. An affidavit has been filed by Dr. T.P.Singh, Joint Director, Medical Care alongwtih a circular issued to various subordinate authorities dated 8.11.2012. The Circular is extracted here below :-
"From,
Director General,
Medical & Health Services,
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
To,
1- All Divisional Additional Directors, Medical
Health and Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh.
2- All Chief Medical Officer, Uttar Pradesh.
3- All Principal/Chief Medical Superintendent/
Superintendent, District Men/Women/Combined
Hospitals, Uttar Pradesh.
Letter No: 11F/5470-72 Lucknow, Dated 8 Nov, 2012
Sub:- C.M.C. No.6750 (B) of 2012 Chhabiraj Vs. State of U.P.
In re:
Case Crime No.286/2012 under Section 307 I.P.C., police
station Chanda, District Sultanpur.
Sir,
Ensure strict compliance of the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in respect of the preparation of Medico Legal Report by the Doctors in the above noted case.
1- Medico Legal Report shall be written in clear writing which is
legible.
2- Simple words shall be used in the Medico Legal Report as possible.
3- Short/Short form/Abbreviation words shall not be used in the
Medico Legal Report.
4- Signatures, Name and Designation of the Doctor shall clearly be
mentioned who has prepared the Medico Legal Report.
Enclosure: As above Signature not readable (Rama Singh)
Director General"
4. I have considered the Circular issued by the authority above mentioned.
5. The Medico Legal Reports, Post Mortem Reports, and reports received from Forensic Science Laboratory from various departments, are required to be gone through and considered by various authorities involved in administration of criminal justice system. The author of the report, if required, only comes as a witness to the Court. Preceding the date of recording evidence, there are number of stages through which the case passes and such reports are relevant at every stage. Under the circumstances the reports are required to be furnished with complete clarity, and preferably computer printer generated or type written. It is required that the investigating officers while filing chargesheets, may also file alongwith handwritten Medico Legal Reports/Injury reports and Post Mortem Reports, their verbatim typed or computerized version, duly certified by the authors of those documents or the head of the concerned hospital. These typed versions of Medico Legal Reports/Injury Reports and Post Mortem Reports would neither be a substitute of the original one nor would be taken as a supplement, however, they would facilitate not only the courts but also the counsel for the prosecution and the defence to clearly understand their contents and accordingly assist the court.
6. The respondent State may consider making efforts to provide the required infrastructure at every place where such reports are prepared. It would be desirable if the said infrastructure is provided within stipulated time, in view of its relevance and importance.
7. In the meantime, the Circular issued vide order dated 8.11.2012 as extracted above, be strictly followed.
8. So far as the present case is concerned, a typed copy of the medico legal report has been provided which indicates contusions, abrasions and lacerations. Allegation against the applicant and the co accused is that the beating was given to the injured. When the injured became unconscious, the injured was put on railway line. The injuries were caused, including by putting gamchha/cloth around the neck and pulling it. So as to project the case as of suicide, the injured was put on railway line.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that allegedly ligature marks have been found on the neck of injured, as would be evident from injury no.6. It has been argued that the injury could not have been as a result of putting a Gamchha/cloth around the neck. On the second count, it has been argued that all the witnesses namely Chhail Bihari Pandey, Shripati Mishra found the injured by the side of the railway line and not on the railway line.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent State has argued that there are serious allegations against the applicant in so much as the injured was given beatings and a cloth was put around the neck of the injured and pulled. After the injured became unconscious he was put on the railway line. The fact is supported by the injury report. It has also been argued that the applicant has a criminal history of six cases.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant has disputed the number of criminal cases against the applicant. Learned counsel states that there are only three cases, including the present case.
12. I have considered the rival contentions in context of the custody period of the applicant.
13. Considering the allegations against the applicant in context of the injuries sixteen in number, at this stage, no ground for grant of bail to the applicant is made out.
14. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
19.12.2012.
Shukla.
