Delhi High Court
State vs Virender @ Ballu & Anr. on 19 January, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
Crl.M.C.No. 3701/2010
Reserved on: 11.01.2012
Pronounced on: 19.01.2012
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi ...... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, Advocate
Versus
Jitender ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.S Gupta, Advocate
And
Crl. M.C.No. 918/2011 & Crl. MA 7782/2011
State ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinod Wadhwa and Mr. Sahil
Kapur, Advocates
Versus
Virender @ Ballu & Anr. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr.Virender, Respondent no.1 in
person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. The petition Crl MC. No. 3701/2010 is against the order dated
07/04/2010 & 30/10/2010 passed by the trial court in FIR No. 1/8 u/s
302/397/120 B IPC Police Station Shahabad Dairy wherein the trial court has
directed the state government to comply with certain directions of the Ld ASJ
with regard to the preparation of post mortem reports and MLC's. Also Crl
MC No. 918/2011 assails order dated 14/01/2011 of the Ld ASJ whereby
another direction has been given by the Ld ASJ regarding taking photographs
of the victims clothes during investigation/inquiry. Both these petitions being
similar in nature are being disposed off by this common order.
2. The directions given by the learned ASJ in Crl MC 3701/2010 can be
summarized up as follows:
a. The MLC and post mortem report shall be prepared by typing it
on the computer instead of them being hand written as hand
written documents may not be clear and thus wastes time of the
court to understand them.
b. The MLC shall be prepared by doctors who are properly
trained in forensic sciences and not my any junior or trainee
doctors.
c. The MLC and post mortem report should clearly and accurately
describe/illustrate the nature, location, depth, color and entry
and exit wounds/injuries on the body.
d. Histo Pathological report of organ(s) of the deceased be
submitted at the earliest.
e. FSL reports should not be delayed.
3. The direction given by the Ld ASJ in Crl MC No. 918 /2011 is that the
doctor who attends any victim, injured or dead and seizes his/her clothes shall
take photographs of the clothes as it is very crucial evidence in a criminal
trial. Therefore it is incumbent upon the doctor to take photographs of the
clothes and submit it with the Investigation officer/court along with the MLC
report of the victim. Similarly, it is directed that the Director, FSL shall take
photographs of the clothes or any other exhibit after opening of their seal and
along with their FSL report, such photographs should be submitted in court.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State contends that learned ASJs
have no power or authority to give such kind of directions to the Government
in policy matters. It is submitted that in the cases wherein directions have
been given by learned ASJs, there was no occasion for passing such
directions. It is submitted that in any case, the Government was contemplating
preparation of computerized postmortem reports and for the implementation
of other directions but a lot of infrastructure was required which in the given
set up was not feasible to comply the same.
5. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and respondent as also the views of the learned trial courts giving
the directions in the aforesaid two cases. The directions which have been
given appear to be quite laudable and seem to reflect to be based on the
experience and difficulties faced by the trial courts. On the other hand, the
contention of learned Standing Counsel for the State that all the directions
could not be complied within the stipulated time due to paucity of required
infrastructure is also worth consideration. Having regard to the entire factual
matrix, I am of the opinion that some of the directions can be implemented
without any additional exchequer or infrastructure. The MLCs and the
postmortem reports which are prepared by the doctors are often seen to be
handwritten and not legible. Then these reports also contain various medical
terminological words which are either not properly spelt or are not legible.
The trial courts do find themselves handicap when confronted with these
kinds of MLCs and postmortem reports. These adversely affect the
administration of justice in various ways including delay in comprehending
and understanding the reports. Not only that, the courts find it inconvenient in
understanding these documents, even sometime the doctors who are not the
authors of those documents and are summoned as witnesses to prove them are
also faced with difficult situations in their examinations and cross
examinations. It would thus be desirable that the investigating officers while
filing charge-sheets, may also file along with the handwritten MLCs and
Postmortem reports, their verbatim typed or computerized version duly
certified by the author of those documents or the Head of the concerned
hospital. Of course, these typed version of MLCs and postmortem reports
would neither be a substitute of the original ones nor would be taken to as a
supplements. These would only be used for the purpose of facilitating the
courts and the parties to clearly understand the contents of the MLCs and
postmortem reports. This exercise does not appear to be requiring any
additional infrastructure. It is felt that this would save precious time of the
court in understanding the contents of MLCs and postmortem reports by the
trial courts.
6. It is also experienced that when the doctor who has prepared the MLC
or postmortem report does not appear in the court to prove such report either
because of his being not available or having demitted the office or retired and
some other doctor, is sent by the hospital to prove such document, the doctors
usually sent to the courts are either trainees or juniors and many a times even
are not able to explain or understand the contents of MLCs or postmortem
reports. This not only creates an unpleasant situation for the prosecution, but
adversely affects the case of the prosecution. In the event the author of the
MLCs or postmortem reports is unable to appear in the court for any reason
whatsoever, then as a matter of policy, the concerned incharge of the hospital
or administrative head must ensure appearance of properly trained and
eligible junior or trainees doctors capable of deposing and proving those
reports in the court. Implementation of such kind of directions also do not
require any additional infrastructure.
7. With regard to Forensic Science Laboratories, it is not only the
experience of trial courts, but also of this court that the reports of FSL are
inordinately delayed which results in passing of various avoidable orders, and
also adversely affects the administration of justice qua the prosecution as well
as the accused. This needs to be streamlined on an urgent basis by giving
confirmed and time-bound instructions for expeditious submissions of FSL
reports within reasonable time say between 30 to 45 days.
8. It is believed that these directions, as enumerated above, will not
require any additional infrastructure and can be outrightly implemented by
having a positive attitude to do so. With regard to the rest of the directions, it
is believed that the Government may have the views of different stake holders
including that of the concerned doctors and the FSLs etc and formulate a time
bound scheme so that there is no delay in trial of cases on account of want of
requisite and proper medical and scientific reports in time.
9. With above directions, both petitions stand disposed of.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
January 19, 2012
rd
