JAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforementioned petitions filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. arises out of the judgement dated 30-8-88 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 76/1981 "State of Rajasthan v. Musariya", whereby the said Sessions Judge ordered for initiating proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P.C. against the petitioners for proceeding them for offences under Sections 193 and 195, I.P.C. and, as such, these petitions are being decided by a common order.

(2.) Stated in succinct, the relevant facts are that on the report of one Udai Singh, Crime No. 4/1981 was registered at Police Station, Weir. After investigation, the police submitted a challan against Musariya and others in the Court of concerned Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The charges for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 326, 325, 324, 333 read with Section 149, I.P.C. were framed against the accused persons. Briefly, the prosecution case was that the accused persons inflicted injuries to informant Udai Singh and his father Suraj Mal, who were medically examined by Medical Jurist Dr. Bhopal Singh, petitioner. The petitioner found as many as seventeen injuries on the person of Suraj Mal, which were caused by sharp as well as blunt weapons detailed in M.L.R. Ex. P. 13. For injuries No. 1 to 5, 7, 8 and 9 to 14, Dr. Bhopal Singh advised for the radiological examination. Petitioner Dr. Jal Singh, who was posted as Radiologist at General Hospital, Bharatpur took the skiagram of Surajmal on 19-1-81 and fracture of lower part of radius in the left hand, fracture of proximal phalynx of left thumb and fracture of fifth metacarpel bone in the right hand and also fracture of proximal phalynx of ring finger were detected. The skiagram of Suraj Mal was also taken on 19-1-81 vide X-Ray plate Ex. P. 5 which was found defective by Dr. Jal Singh, who advised to repeat the skiagram of the skull. On 21-1-81, the skiagram of skull of Suraj Mal was repeated and petitioner Dr. Jal Singh noticed the fracture of his parietal bane vide his X-ray report Ex. P. 4. The informant Udai Singh was also examined on 19-1-81 by Dr. Jal Singh and he noticed as many as ten injuries on his person. The skiagram of Udai Singh revealed a fracture of his fourth matacarpal bone. Since Surajmal had received multiple injuries, he was admitted as an indoor patient by C.W. 1, Dr. N. K. Srivastava, who was on duty in the Emergency Ward vide Bed Head Ticket Ex. D. 1. Dr. Srivastava referred Surajmal for being admitted in the Male Orthopaedic Ward because of X-Ray examination, bony injuries on his hands and legs were visible. During trial, the complainant of the accused party compromised the matter and the compromise-deed was also submitted before the Court. Since many of the offences for which the accused were charged, were not compoundable, the learned trial Judge recorded the prosecution evidence as also the plea of the accused persons and the defence evidence. Since the injured did not support the prosecution case in toto and resiled from their police statements, the learned trial Judge examined Dr. N. K. Srivastava and Dr. K. C. Sharma as Court witnesses, who stated that they did not notice any fracture on the head of Surajmal. The learned trial Judge acquitted all the accused persons but while parting with the impugned judgement, he made certain remarks prejudicial to the petitioners. Relying on the testimony of CW 1 and CW 2, he observed that had there been any fracture in the head of Surajmal, Dr. N. K. Srivastava and Dr. K. C. Sharma, who had attended and treated Surajmal in the Orthopaedic Ward, must have found injuries on the head of Surajmal and, therefore, he inferred that the petitioners had forged the subsequent X-ray plate of the skull of Surajmal. The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry be conducted against the petitioners under Section 340, Cr. P.C. for prosecuting them for the offence punishable under Sections 193 and 195, I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the prejudicial remarks/observations, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court for invoking its inherent powers and prayed for expunging the said remarks and for setting aside the proposed enquiry.

(3.) I have heard Shri Biri Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri K. A. Khan, learned Public Prosecutor at length and perused the record of the trial Court in extenso.