Bombay High Court Allows Accused to Cross-Examine Autopsy Surgeon on Treatment Papers in Murder Trial — Section 294 CrPC Does Not Bar Cross-Examination on Documents Not Formally Proved. The court held that the right of cross-examination is a valuable right and cannot be curtailed by a narrow interpretation of Section 294 CrPC, and the accused must be allowed to challenge the doctor's opinion on the basis of treatment papers produced by him.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, original accused in Sessions Case No. 153 of 2015 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, are charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder. During the trial, the prosecution examined PW-18 Dr. Kailash Zine, who conducted the autopsy on the deceased. The post mortem report was exhibited as Exhibit 216, and the diagram of injuries as Exhibit 217. Before the commencement of cross-examination, Dr. Zine produced the treatment papers of the deceased, which he had brought from the hospital. The accused sought to cross-examine him on those treatment papers. However, the trial court, by order dated 04-10-2019, disallowed such cross-examination, holding that under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, documents which are not disputed need not be proved, and therefore the accused could not cross-examine on those documents. Aggrieved, the accused filed the present criminal writ petition challenging that order. The original informant also filed an intervention application. The High Court examined the scope of Section 294 CrPC and the right of cross-examination. It observed that Section 294 CrPC deals with admission of documents by the prosecution or accused to avoid formal proof, but it does not bar cross-examination on documents that are produced by a witness and are relevant to his testimony. The court noted that the treatment papers were produced by the witness himself and were part of the record; the accused had a right to test the veracity of the doctor's opinion regarding the cause of death by referring to those papers. The High Court held that the trial court's order was erroneous and that the accused must be permitted to cross-examine PW-18 on the treatment papers. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to permit the accused to cross-examine PW-18 on the treatment papers. The intervention application was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Cross-examination - Section 294 CrPC - Right of accused - The trial court disallowed cross-examination of autopsy surgeon on treatment papers produced by him, holding that under Section 294 CrPC, documents not disputed need not be proved. The High Court held that Section 294 CrPC does not bar cross-examination on documents that are produced by a witness and are relevant to his testimony; the accused has a right to test the veracity of the witness on all material aspects, including documents that form part of the record. (Paras 1-15)

B) Evidence - Autopsy Surgeon - Treatment Papers - Section 302 IPC - The autopsy surgeon (PW-18) brought treatment papers of the deceased and produced them before court. The accused sought to cross-examine him on those papers to challenge the cause of death. The High Court held that the accused cannot be denied the opportunity to cross-examine on documents that are relevant and have been produced by the witness, even if not formally exhibited, as it is essential for a fair trial. (Paras 2-15)

C) Criminal Trial - Fair Trial - Right of Defence - The High Court emphasized that the right of cross-examination is a valuable right of the accused and cannot be curtailed except for valid reasons. The trial court's order disallowing cross-examination on the treatment papers was set aside, and the accused were permitted to cross-examine PW-18 on those papers. (Paras 14-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court erred in disallowing the accused from cross-examining the autopsy surgeon (PW-18) on treatment papers of the deceased that were produced by the witness but not formally exhibited, and whether Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars such cross-examination.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the criminal writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 04-10-2019, and directed the trial court to permit the accused to cross-examine PW-18 on the treatment papers of the deceased. The intervention application was disposed of accordingly.

Law Points

  • Section 294 CrPC
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Cross-examination rights
  • Autopsy surgeon
  • Treatment papers
  • Post mortem report
  • Fair trial
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (01) 5

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1764 of 2019

2020-01-13

Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Mr. S. G. Ladda, Mr. S. S. Khivansara, Ms. R. S. Kulkarni, Mr. A. A. Jagatkar

Sanjay s/o Shankar Bhalkar and others

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petition challenging trial court order disallowing cross-examination of autopsy surgeon on treatment papers.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners (accused) sought to set aside the trial court's order dated 04-10-2019 and to be permitted to cross-examine PW-18 on the treatment papers of the deceased.

Filing Reason

The trial court disallowed cross-examination of PW-18 on treatment papers produced by him, citing Section 294 CrPC.

Previous Decisions

The trial court passed an order on 04-10-2019 in Sessions Case No. 153 of 2015 disallowing cross-examination on the treatment papers.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in disallowing cross-examination of PW-18 on treatment papers under Section 294 CrPC? Whether the accused have a right to cross-examine a witness on documents produced by him that are relevant to his testimony?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that Section 294 CrPC does not bar cross-examination on documents that are produced by a witness and are relevant; the accused has a right to test the veracity of the doctor's opinion. Respondent-State argued that the treatment papers were not disputed and hence need not be proved, and cross-examination on them was rightly disallowed.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 294 CrPC does not bar cross-examination of a witness on documents produced by him that are relevant to his testimony; the right of cross-examination is a valuable right of the accused and cannot be curtailed except for valid reasons. The accused must be allowed to challenge the doctor's opinion on the basis of treatment papers produced by him.

Judgment Excerpts

Section 294 of Cr.P.C. deals with admission of documents by the prosecution or accused to avoid formal proof, but it does not bar cross-examination on documents that are produced by a witness and are relevant to his testimony. The right of cross-examination is a valuable right of the accused and cannot be curtailed except for valid reasons.

Procedural History

The petitioners (accused) are facing trial in Sessions Case No. 153 of 2015 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, for offences under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. During the trial, PW-18 Dr. Kailash Zine (autopsy surgeon) was examined. After his examination-in-chief, he produced treatment papers of the deceased. The accused sought to cross-examine him on those papers. The trial court disallowed such cross-examination by order dated 04-10-2019. The accused filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1764 of 2019 challenging that order. The original informant filed Cri. Appln. No. 3620 of 2019 for intervention. The High Court heard both matters and delivered judgment on 13-01-2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 294
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Regular Second Appeal in Rent and Business Income Recovery Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Section 100 CPC Appeal Dismissed as No Substantial Question of Law Arises.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Accused to Cross-Examine Autopsy Surgeon on Treatment Papers in Murder Trial — Section 294 CrPC Does Not Bar Cross-Examination on Documents Not Formally Proved. The court held that the right of cross-examination is a valuab...