Rajvir Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 1 June, 2023
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
::: Downloaded on - 06-06-2023 21:38:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080882-DB
Cr. Appeal-S-3331-SB of 2017 (O&M)
-15-
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.