Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. It is true that the medical document under Ex.D-1 to D-3 were procured after the retirement of Dr.Jayaraman. In the cross-examination the Investigation Officer, P.W-17 Thiru.Balaraman had admitted that he had registered the case in Crime No.335 of 1998 based on the complaint of the Accused No.5 Thangaraj. He had evaded direct question that as per his https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 05:28:50 pm )  .Crl.A.No.351 of 2016.

evidence, he had arrested Accused 5 Thangaraj from the at Harur. Whereas there was evidence that Accused 5 had been under treatment for four days at Dharmapuri Government Hospital as he was forwarded to Dharmapuri Government Hospital after treatment at Harur. To the specific question, whether he had verified the medical records pertaining to Thangaraj, he was unable to give a specific answer. In the subsequent part of his cross- examination, he admits that A-5 Thangaraj and A-7 Udhayasuriyan were in treatment was informed to him. To the pointed question, whether he had examined the Doctor who treated the Prosecution Witness 1 and 2, the same Doctor who had treated A-5 and -7, he would submit that since he had retired from service, he is unable to answer the Cross-examination without the help of CD file. As per the Prosecution case, the Accused herein recognised the Prosecution witness. The deceased Govindan is the elder brother of Accused-1 Shanmugam. If there had been clash between two groups, there is every likelihood of the Accused also suffering injuries. That is the presumption from the normal human conduct. When there are clashes between relatives one group will not remain to be at the receiving end. They would also be retaliated and inflicted by the other group. Under those circumstances, even if the documents procured by the Accused is as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 05:28:50 pm )  .Crl.A.No.351 of 2016.

per the evidence of A-5 after the retirement of P.W-14 Dr.Jayaraman, it is surreptitiously procured. At the same time, they should have summoned the Documents from the Government Hospital, Harur or from the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri. The evidence of P.W-17 Investigation Officer hints that he had been acted fairly. As per the reported decision in 1954- M.W.N.(Cr.) 9 [Thota Ramakrishnayya and others -vs- The State] the Investigation Officer had to place all the materials before the Court and it is for the Court, based on the evidence let in by the witnesses, to arrive at a conclusion as to who are the aggressors and who are the victims.

26. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants/Accused probablise the case that there was a group clash. Since the father of P.W-1 and P.W-2 in S.C.No.74 of 2014 died in the hospital, the Accused in this case were treated as Accused and the injury suffered on the side of the Accused were suppressed by the Prosecution. The Prosecution has to explain the injury suffered by the Accused. The observation of the learned Sessions Judge that the documents were procured subsequently is true but that cannot be rejected in its entirety. Even if the documents are rejected the existence of the case and counter case is made out from the fact, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 05:28:50 pm )  .Crl.A.No.351 of 2016.