Karnataka High Court
Sri Sudhakara vs State By Turavanur Police Station on 23 August, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5657 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
Sri. Sudhakara
S/o Rudrappa
Agriculturist
Aged about 27 years,
R/o Chippinakere villatg,
Chitradurga Taluk & District 577 535.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY TURAVANUR POLICE STATION,
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BANGALORE 560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2018 PASSED IN
S.C.NO.52/2016 AT ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA AND DISMISS
2
THE APPLICATION DATED 27.6.2018 AT ANNEXURE-B FILED IN
S.C.NO.52/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA UNDER SECTION 91 OF
CR.P.C.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, dated 12.07.2018 in S.C.No.52/2016. By the said order, learned Sessions Judge has allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and has received on record the documents produced by the prosecution.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the documents sought to be produced are the medical records relating to the treatment of the complainant-victim. Therefore, the proper course would have been to summon these documents from the hospital authorities rather than permitting the prosecution to produce the documents which were not part of the charge sheet.
3. Undisputedly, the documents are not admitted in evidence. The proof and admissibility of these documents is 3 required to be decided only at the stage of trial, when the documents are sought to be tendered in evidence. According to the prosecution, all these documents relate to the treatment given to the victim in Manipal hospital. These documents could be proved either by examining the author of the document or the person who received them. If the victim is able to establish that the said documents were received by her during her treatment in Manipal hospital, the same could be admitted in evidence. If any of such documents are found to be not issued by the hospital authorities, it is always open for the accused either to make an application to summon the case records relating to the treatment of the victim or to cross-examine the doctor, who treated the victim. If for any reason, the doctor is not examined by the prosecution, it would serve the ends of justice if liberty is reserved to the accused to call for the original documents from the hospital authorities. Reserving this liberty to the accused, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Psg*