Sanjay Digamber Khule v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Pso Dongaon
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [BA] No.315 of 2018 Sanjay Digamber Khule vs.
State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Dongaon, Tah. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= OfÏce notes, OfÏce Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri N.B. Rathod, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri H.D. Dubey, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant-State.
CORAM
: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 24 th APRIL, 2018.
Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the injury report given by the private hospital is not consistent with the injury certificate issued by the Government Hospital and, therefore, what has been opined in the Injury certificate issued by the Medical OfÏcer, Rural Hospital, Mehkar, would prevail. He submits that this injury certificate prima facie shows that the injuries suffered by Gopal Dhandre were simple in nature and, therefore, no intention to kill is discernible. I do not think that the argument of the leaned Counsel for the applicant can be accepted at this stage. The learned A.P.P. is right in the submission that the injury certificate does not give
2/3 any final opinion at least in respect of three injuries and it says that the opinion of the Doctor is reserved. Now, there is no final opinion obtained by the Investigating OfÏcer and if that is so, the victim of this crime cannot be blamed and could not be termed as a liar. Then, the Medical OfÏcer himself reserved his opinion in respect of three injuries and the private hospital, which issued a injury report dated 16/10/2017, has given its opinion in respect of these three injuries and they show that they are in the nature of contused lacerated wounds on the back portion which required stitching, fracture of humerus bone and fracture of mandible caused by hard and blunt object. This report also says that all these wounds will heal in 60 days after operation, if there are no complications.
This report cannot be understood as being inconsistent with the injury certificate issued by the Medical OfÏcer for these injuries are those injuries in respect of which no opinion has been expressed by the Government Doctor. This report corroborates the version of Gopal Dhandre, the injured person. His statement could be recorded only after about 2 months from the date of incident, because he was not in a position to speak due to fracture of his mandible.
3/3 The statements of the eye witnesses also revealed that this was an unprovoked assault made on the person of Gopal Dhandre by this applicant and a great deal of intervention was required on the part of the other witnesses present there to rescue Gopal Dhandre from getting further attacked by this applicant.
These facts and circumstances would prima facie show not only the involvement of this applicant in the present crime, but also the possibility of misusing the liberty, if it is granted to the applicant at this stage.
In the result, I am not inclined to allow this application. The application stands rejected. The trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. JUDGE *sandesh