Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. We now come to the dying-declaration which was made before Dr. S.K. Goyal PW 16. Dr. Goyal was present at the hospital when the neighbours brought, Pushpa to hospital. According to Dr. Goyal, when she was brought he examined her and treated her. In the night, he was again called, and he examined her finding that she was semi-conscious, According to Dr. Goyal the conditions or circumstances under which Pushpa was admitted to hospital, were very strange and curious, because, their was no relative accompanying her, and the neighbours were present at the hospital, who also left leaving her alone. When he asked the patient as to how she had been burnt then the lady told him that her mother-in-law had burnt her. Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the accused, and the trial court has also accepted this objection as valid that since the bed-head ticket had no such entry of dying-declaration, it should not be believed. When this witness was asked as to why he had not stated so to the police, then, he replied that the SHO or any other officer did not make any query from him in this regard. According to this doctor, he was a medical jurist, and therefore, he did not take any steps. The trial court has disbelieved this witness firstly, on the ground that there is no mention in the bed-head ticket of the dying-declaration, by him, secondly, he did not say anything to the police as to how Pushpa had received the burn-injuries; and thirdly, for the reason that there was no police officer present at the time of recording of the dying-declaration. But, we are unable to accept this ground. We do not find any serious infirmity for which the dying-declaration should be rejected. There is no doubt that Dr. Goyal had no interest in the complainant i.e., the father and the other members of the family of the deceased, as he performed his duty independently, and was not in any way, related to the deceased or her family members. However, the fact that the deceased was taken to hospital by the neighbours only and none of the family members accompanied the victim to hospital, is proved by the evidence of this witness also who was doctor and was present at the hospital at the time when Pushpa was taken to hospital by the neighbours. The fact that the recording of dying-declaration is not mentioned in the bed-head ticket, in our opinion, is not of much significance Bed-head ticket is not a crime register or police Roznamcha, or record of any officer who is required to either register the case; investigate the case, or even in any other manner connected with the case. Bed-head ticket is meant for mentioning general condition of a patient from time to time in respect of his/her ailment, progress, check-up, blood-pressure and functioning of the various important mechanism of the human body like heart-beat, pulse beat etc. etc. So, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Tibre-wal, and we are of the opinion that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the dying-declaration, before the doctor, on the ground that no written complaint was kept in the hospital or was it mentioned to the police. In our opinion, bed-head ticket need not contain any entry regarding the name of the accused or details of the offence committed. The principal thing required to be mentioned in the bed-head ticket is the general condition of the patient from time to time, and medical treatment given to a patient;response observed, and treatment suggested from time to time.

24. The trial court as well as Mr. Tibrewal have laid emphasis on the ground that the statement of the doctor before the police, did not find any mention of this allegation.

25. A bed-head ticket cannot be regarded and treated as analogous or synonymous to an FIR for a crime. Dr. Goyal was only a medical jurist present at the hospital. He was concerned with looking after the patient who was admitted to hospital at its Emergency-Ward. In his police statement, this witness as would be obvious from the entire evidence, was question about the medical aspect of the case. No question was ever put to him by any Police Officer to explain and to give the story of incident. The doctor was only required to give his statement about the condition of the patient (Pushpa) from time to time, to the police. Normally a medical witness is examined for for proving medical aspect of a case. If under that impression, the police did not inquire from the witness about the name of deceased of burning Pushpa or whether she had told anything to him about the author of the burning, it was not necessary for the doctor at his own initiative to have mentioned that she had stated to him by whom she had been burnt. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that Dr. Goyal's statement about the dying declaration of the deceased, cannot be said to be tainted or untrustworthy or false, nor does it suffer from any inexactitude.

32. We are of the opinion that these requirements are not applicable at all to this case, so far as Dr. Goyal is concerned.

33. In our opinion, the reasons given by the trial court for disbelieving Dr. Goyal, mainly emphasize on not mentioning of the dying-declaration in the bed head ticket, and its absence in the police statement. As we have mentioned above, for a doctor, in this case it was not necessary to have mentioned it, in the bed-head ticket, nor any importance can be given to it, because, the police examined only for the medical aspect of the case, i.e. the injuries sustained by the patient etc. ete.