Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

42. The learned counsel for accused submit it is the entire case got botched by the IO, complainant though injured and shifted to hospital at the earliest had given complaint only at about 6.30 am on 12.3.2016. the complainant had suffered only 5% burn injuries. As per Ex.P.1 the complainant himself has signed the complaint. When he is able to sign the complaint then the complainant was in a conscious state of mind as per the document placed by the prosecution itself to speak about the incident at the first instance before the Medical Officer. Even considering the victim and the complainant and the complainant`s wife and daughter are in shock when they have explained how they have suffered injuries before the Medical Officer they could have definitely pointed out that at the instance of the accused only the entire incident SC NO. 858/2016 happened. Therefore Ex.P.1 complaint and Ex.P. 14 and 15 actually contradicts the prosecution case. Ex.P. 12, 13, 14, 15 admittedly contradicts the prosecution case to consider that the IO is fair enough to show that the incident had happened as per the charge sheet. The learned counsel for accused submit the photographs taken in the house of the complainant, the Ex.D. series disclose how the situation speak. Infact as there is caste difference between the accused and the victim who succumbed to the injuries, however Ex.D. 1 to 6 clearly shows that they were cordial, even the family members have accepted their friendship and deep love was not under threat. Ex.D. series came to be marked through the defense in the evidence of PW. 1 only who has specifically given explanation about the situation between the accused and the victim and his family members. Infact PW. 2 has actually turned hostile to the prosecution case who is the mother of the victim who has none other than wife of PW. 1. infact there is no any attempt made by the IO to record the statement of the victim as per Ex.P. 12 victim was conscious when she was brought to the hospital.

13. After that they were unable to speak as per medical records. Therefore, this aspect contradicts the prosecution case.

54. The learned counsel for accused argues as per exhibit P16 and D8 both records of the accused actually the time of examination differs. The notes made therein in the wound certificate differs. The contents are also contradictory to the medical record, Medical officer evidence before the Court, it seems it is botched up. The learned counsel for accused argues as per PW.15 Dr.Chennakeshava issued Ex.P16 the OP records to police and exhibit D.8 OP record, is considered the other records namely exhibit P.15 is concocted. The witness has specified he is not the author of the same. The subordinates doctors on duty have written the same and he signed as monitoring authority of the same.

81. In the discharge summary draft prepared in writing at page 77 of Ex.P. 29. It has been noted that accidental thermal burns to face, hands, patient was conscious, oriented, vitals were stable, the history of patient when brought to the hospital. However in the Discharge Summary in the same record at page 115 it has been written as history of assault resulting in burn injuries to face and both hands. Further in the same record in between page 104 and 105 the St. John`s Hospital written intimation as there was unavailability of ICU bed referring PW. 2 for treatment , it has been noted on 12.3.2016 history of assault resulting in burn injuries to face and both hands. The record of the Medical Officer of PW. 2 Ex.P. 29 and 30 actually contradicts with case record maintained in Gurushree Hospital. Ex.P. 30 speaks about homicidal burns, Ex.P. 29 contents as noted supra there is contradiction in the case record. The consultation notes differ from the Discharge Summary, it has been specifically noted in a consultation note that the injured Anupama PW. 2 was not aware what has happened till she was shifted to hospital. PW. 2 in her evidence has deposed while she was in the house due to short of breath she became SC NO. 858/2016 unconscious. Therefore the medical record has been tailored after the incident and death of the victim, the notes made at the first instance actually differs from the notes made after death of the victim. The argument of the learned counsel for accused that family of the victim were not at all intending to punish the accused at the first instance, therefore they did not disclose the incident as per the I. Os papers. After the death of the victim they were forced by the IO to implicate the accused as a person, perpetrator resulting in the incident and as such the entire case is tailor made to implicate the accused to make believe accused having knowledge that his act will cause grievous hurt to the victims and that may result in serious injuries to the family of the victim has been botched up seems a reasonable prayer. Therefore this court on the basis of the material placed by the prosecution that accused was intending to cause actual hurt or grievous hurt to all the family members so as to threaten them for not honoring his love has not been brought up by the prosecution as per the case of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer in his cross­examination has specifically deposed that he had no any intention to investigate with regard to love affair of the accused and victim . He has specifically answered he did not felt it reasonable so as to bring out the accused and victim who succumbed to injuries were in actual love in the present case before filing charge sheet. However PW. 27 explained one Honnappa was working in SC NO. 858/2016 his Police Station and to the suggestion that Honnappa is the material in getting compromise the family of both victim and accused, which is not within the knowledge of the I.O. and he has not even attempted to know about the same which is very crucial to prove either the guilt of the accused or the hostality between the accused, grudge against the family members of the victim who had succumbed to the injuries.

94. Ex.P. 16 the noting of burns after setting fire to a house if at all informed by the accused at about 3.40 am then the accused suffering from epileptic as noted in Ex.d. 8 , which actually corroborates with medical record copies submitted by Jail Superintendent on 18.9.2016 corroborates with Dr. B.M.Suresh consultant of Unit 6 at NIMHANS dated 20.3.2016. Therefore in the case on hand the medical record itself seems botched up. Under the circumstances the citations relied by the learned counsel for accused based on the evidence and last seen theory relied by the learned PP in 2012 (7) SCC 646 the eye witnesses being seeing part of chain of circumstances is to be considered though seems reasonable, with regard to accused being present at the scene of offence the presence of the accused can be corroborated based on the citation relied by the learned PP.