Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. It was further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the medical evidence was at variance with the oral evidence of the witnesses and hence could not be relied upon. Neither the X-ray report nor the X-ray films had been produced on record to prove that the injured had sustained 6 of 21 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080882-DB Cr. Appeal-S-3331-SB of 2017 (O&M) Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:080882-DB any grievous injury. The prosecution had implicated the accused on the allegation of having caused grievous injuries to the injured on the basis of oral statements of the doctors which could not be relied upon for the purpose. Even the name of the radiologist who had conducted radiological examination of the injured had not been cited in the list of witnesses nor he had been examined due to which the factum that the injured had sustained any grievous injury had become doubtful. Neither any weapon of offence nor the vehicles allegedly used in the commission of the subject crime were got recovered at the instance of the accused. No investigation whatsoever had been conducted as against the unidentified youth who allegedly accompanied the accused at the time of occurrence. The place of occurrence had not been established beyond doubt. It was further argued that the presence of appellants-accused had not been established at the place of occurrence at all. The learned trial court had wrongly disbelieved the plea of alibi as set up by them and thereby committed a grave error. With these broad arguments, it was submitted that the impugned judgment and order were liable to be set aside, the appeal deserved to be accepted and that the appellants deserved to be acquitted of the charges for which they had been held guilty and convicted.

17. Yet another circumstance which has also created doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version is that as per the allegations, the appellants-accused along with three unknown persons had opened assault upon the complainant on 30.11.2013 and while they had caused injuries to him with datar and the kirpan, the unknown persons had caused injuries to him with baseball bats and iron rods and he had sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. PW-4 Dr. Jatinder who had conducted medico legal examination of the injured complainant on 30.11.2013 deposed that the injured had sustained three grievous injuries in the form of incised wounds in left ring finger, right knee and left foot and some abrasions. PW-7 Dr. Mukesh Joshi proved treatment record of the victim Ex.PW7/C and the injury report which is part of that record shows that four injuries which were grievous in nature and fractures on medial femoral condyle oblique, patella right and compound comminuted fracture proximal phalanx (left) ring finger were found on the person of the complainant. The learned trial Court had observed that though some of the injuries were grievous in nature but since they were not on vital parts of the body and hence could not be considered as dangerous to life and had accordingly, it had held the accused guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC. It has, however, been noticed that neither the specific fracture reports and X-ray films have been produced in evidence nor even the radiologist 14 of 21 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080882-DB Cr. Appeal-S-3331-SB of 2017 (O&M) Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:080882-DB who had taken the X-ray films and had prepared the report that the complainant had sustained grievous injuries, had been examined. It is well settled principle of law that the X-ray taken by the radiologist to sustain the nature of the injury must be produced and proved before a Court of Law and that the evidence given by the Radiologist, the gravity and the nature of the injury has to be subscribed as clearly laid down under Section 320 of IPC. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the case reported as Nallasingam and others v. State, 1993 (1) M.L.J. (Criminal) 6 wherein the injured had claimed that he had sustained fracture in the bone. In the absence of the X-Ray film and the testimony of some doctor, it was held by the High Court of Madras that grievous injury was not proved by proving X-ray film and X-ray report on record which could specifically point out that the victim had actually suffered a fracture in the bone in order to bring the case under the requirement of Section 320 of IPC. Reliance can also be placed upon Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019 (2) Law Herald 1018, wherein the opinion of doctor was based on report of a Radiologist who was not produced before the Court. Even the X-Ray film on the basis of which the injury was opined to be grievous in nature, was not produced on record. A Coordinate Bench of this Court had held that opinion of another doctor based on the report of Radiologist could not be taken to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 325 of IPC. Similarly in Santoo v. State, 1976 SCC OnLine All 267, X-ray report of injury caused to the complainant was prepared by "A". The prosecution did not produce "A" before the Court. It was also not suggested that "A" was either dead or not available. A supplementary report was prepared by "B" on the basis of 15 of 21 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080882-DB Cr. Appeal-S-3331-SB of 2017 (O&M) Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:080882-DB report prepared by "A". It was held by High Court of Allahabad that report of "A" was inadmissible in evidence and the evidence of "B" based on supplementary report of "A" was also inadmissible in evidence. Reliance can also be placed upon Faizan Ahmed Abdul Wahab Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (1) Bombay C.R. (Criminal) 643, wherein it was observed by High Court of Bombay that there could not be any presumption that grievous hurt was caused without formal proof of fact of fracture. The fact of existence of fracture could not be diagnosed and certified in the absence of proof of X-ray plates, unless the fact of fractured bones was perceivable barely on perception by naked eyes and sheerly by clinical examination. It is being vivid and palpable. On applying the ratio of law as laid down in the above cited authorities to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it has been observed that though both PW-4 and PW-7 had deposed that the complainant had sustained grievous injuries on his person but neither of them had conducted radiological examination of those injuries. PW-4 deposed that on examination of medico legal report and bed head ticket of Joshi Hospital, they had opined on 25.10.2014, that three injuries found on the person of the injured complainant were grievous in nature. He stated that no radiological examination of the complainant was done at Civil Hospital, Bhunga but there was a suspicion of fracture of leg at that time. Further, in the evidence led by PW-7 Dr. Mukesh Joshi, it has nowhere come that he himself had conducted radiological examination of the injuries on the person of the injured which were opined to be grievous in nature neither this witness could produce X-ray report or X-ray film of the injured on record. In the 16 of 21 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080882-DB Cr. Appeal-S-3331-SB of 2017 (O&M) Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:080882-DB absence of examination of the doctor who had conducted radiological examination of the victim and further in the absence of specific X-ray reports and X-ray films, no conclusion could obviously be drawn that the injuries which were opined to be grievous were in fact so in nature and were falling within the definition of Section 320 of IPC. Since while recording the findings of the guilt of the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, these facts had not been taken into consideration by learned trial Court at all, therefore, in our opinion, the findings as given by learned trial Court on that point cannot be stated to be sustainable in the eyes of law as the most essential requirement for holding the appellants-accused guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC i.e. their having caused grievous injuries by them to the complainant has not been proved.