Mr. M. KARUNANIDHI, Advocate, Madurai High Court
1. The coordinal principle of criminal law is that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence heavy duty is cost upon the prosecution to prove its case by placing all reliable, material witnesses, documents and material objects so as to leave all doubts and to get conviction.
2. If a report making out a cognizable offence is reported to an officer in-charge of the police station as well counter complaint setting-forth allegations in one and the same incident, then the investigation officer has to make through investigation to find out the truth or otherwise of the “REPORT” submitted by different persons alleging each other responsible for the crime. If both the parties sustained injuries it is the duty of the investigation officer to collect evidence in both the cases such as accident register, wound certificate and to collect evidences from the place of occurrence in order to find out who are the aggressors. Unlike other criminal case if a case and counter case is registered after the collection of evidences are over all the materials have to be submitted to the District Public Prosecutor for opinion and then both the cases have to be charge sheeted.
3. Police standing order 588(A) is the guiding provision when case and counter case is reported.
4. Both the case and cross case has to be placed before the same Judge and Judgments should be pronounced on the same day. The relevant Judgment on the point is reported in (2001)2 SCC 688.
Sudhir and others Vs. State of M.P.
State of MP Vs. Lavkush and others
5. Whether accused injury is to be explained
It is pertinent to point out the land mark Judgment on this point.
AIR 1976 SC 2263 Laxmi Singh Vs. State of Bihar.
The Principle laid down in the above case is very much important. So, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder.
“11............in a murder case, the non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstances from which the court can draw the following inferences.
(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable.
(3) that in case there is defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes greater importance where the evidence consists of interested and inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution case...........”
6. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment has been followed in many cases. Though the land mark guiding Judgment has been pronounced in the year 1976 itself even now we have seen many criminal cases ended in acquittal for the reason that the injury on the accused has not been explained and all the materials regarding the occurrence not placed i.e. true version of occurrence has not been placed. Few of such cases are given below.
(1) CDJ 2011 MHC 1752 (Rajasekaran & others Vs. State.)
(2) CDJ 2010 MHC 5671 (C.T. Rani Vs.State)
(3) CDJ 2011 MHC 5555 (Paulraj & others Vs.State)
(4) CDJ 2012 MHC 2737 (Muthu & others Vs. State)
(5) CDJ 2013 MHC 2233 ( Balasekar Vs. State)
7. Whether records of the counter case is to be marked in cross case:
In order to explain the injuries on the accused and to have a fair trial all the documents viz. FIR, Accident Register, wound certificate is to be produced and those documents have to be duly proved by examining necessary witnesses and then only prosecution will get success. It is the learned trial Judge to find out who are the aggressors and not the investigating officer. So, it is the bounden duty of the investigation officer to submit all relevant records before the court.
Thus it is made clear even after lapse of nearly 37 years after the authoritative Judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point the prosecution fails for the simple reason that they have not placed all documents before court and accused injuries not explained. Viewing the same from the point of victim atleast hereinafter we expect the prosecution follows the judicial dictum on the point and get sure success.