Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that on the complaint/Ex.P1 of P.W.1, a case was registered by P.W.5, P.W.7, the Investigating Officer took up further investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar, rough sketch in the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.6. P.W.1 and P.W.3 fairly admit that they reached the scene of occurrence after the accident, P.W.2 who was walking along with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the deceased, clearly state that he along with the deceased was walking on the left edge of the road assigned to pedestrian, at that time, the vehicle driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased from the back which is proved by Ex.P4/observation mahazar and Ex.P2/rough sketch. The damage to the vehicle recorded in Ex.P6/Motor Vehicle report, from which, it is seen that the wind screen of the vehicle broken into pieces which confirms that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Further, the post mortem report/Ex.P7 confirms that “The deceased would appear to have died of shock and heamorrage of injury to vital organs [brain]”. It is also submitted that since the marking of documents Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 was not objected by the petitioner during trial, now he cannot raise such objection. Further, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 marked under Section 294 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the decision in the case of K.K.Mani vs. The State, rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem District reported in 2009 [2] MWN[Cr.] 399, wherein it is held that non-examination of Motor Vehicle Inspector and the Doctor who conducted post mortem are not fatal, in the absence of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis objections being made when the documents are marked and when no suggestion was made in this regard during cross examination now cannot raise objection. Further, when the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no such objections made. Therefore, it is submitted that the accident took place only due to the rashness and negligence of the petitioner. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the criminal revision petition.

5.This Court firstly consider the petitioner's contention that non- examination of Motor Vehicle Inspector and Post Mortem Doctor and marking of Ex.P6/Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and Ex.P7/Post Mortem Report. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Arumugam vs. State by Sub-Inspector of Police, Uthkkuli Police Station, Erode reported in (2001) 2 LW(Crl.) 773, wherein it was held that documents marked without examining the author of the document and it is objected by the petitioner, it is to be taken the documents are marked without consent under section 294 Cr.P.C., further for marking documents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis under Section 29 Cr.P.C., G.O.Ms.No.258 [Courts-V] dated 08.02.1993 describing the proforma, stating the documents can be marked only in the form mentioned in the Government Order to be followed, not following the procedure and if marking of documents are objected, marking of documents in such petition is illegal and the Court cannot look into the document as the contents of the documents are not proved by the prosecution.

8.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Akhtar and others vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in [2009] 13 SCC 722, wherein it is held as follows:

“21.It has been argued that non-examination of the medical officers concerned is fatal for the prosecution. However, there is no denial of the fact that the defence admitted the genuineness of the injury reports and the post-mortem examination reports before the trial Court. So the genuineness and authenticity of the documents stands proved and shall be treated as valid evidence under Section 294 Cr.P.C. It is settled position of law that if the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not disputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem report can read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of it contents without the doctor concerned being examined.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.

10.From the above, it is clear that marking of documents where no formal proof is required, there is a prescribed procedure, as far as our State is concerned, G.O.Ms.258 [Court-V] dated 08.02.1993, is issued giving the proforma by which the documents ought to be marked. Though it is only a procedure code, in view of the significance and importance Section 294 Cr.P.C. plays an important role in the trial, it is proper that the same is to be strictly followed, merely recording that the document is marked under Section 294 Cr.P.C. is not sufficient.