LexMOHANLAL GANGARAM GEHANI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' 11 •I -""' -.-. MOHANLAl GANGARAM GEHANI v. STATE .OF MAHARASHTRA February 17, 1982 (S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, 0.A. DESAI AND A. VARADARAIAN, JJ.] 277 Evidence Act-Section 145-Scope of-Identification parade-Accused identi- fied by witMssfor the first time in court-Evidence-Validity of. The prosecution case against the appellant was that on tho night of occur- rence between 11 and 11.30 ,the informer and two of his friends were standing on a road when suddenly the three accused emerged out of the car and tho appellant assaulted and stabbed the injured )lerson with a dagger. The prosecution alleged that there was !!Dcmity between the assailants and the injured person; that the informer lodged a F.I.R. at 00.50 hrs. and that the injured man was picked up by a Polic~ Wireless Van and adniitted in the ho~pital. The trial court convicted the accused under section 326/34 l.P.C. and sentenced them variously. The High Cdurt acquitted two of the three accused. In regard to the appel- lant, disbelieving the evidence of the doctor on the ground that the name 9f the assailant was first written by her as "Tony'' but later changed.-to read as titiny" and that secondly there was no particular .columa in the register where the name ofthe ... ailant could be written, the High Court altered the conviction to one under section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three · years. On appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that (I) the F.I.R. was not lodged at 00.SO hrs. as claimed by the prosecution; (2) the injured did not know the. appellant ~fore the occurrence; (3) the ·version of the injured that the name of the assailant was disclosed-to him by a friend of the informer should not he accepted and (4) the discrepancy in the name of the assailant recorded by the doctor was not •uch as to completely discredit her evidence. Allowing the appeal, HELD : (a) The change of name "Tony" into "Tiny" in ·the hospital register might be due to mis-hearing of the name in the first instance aod correct· ing it later. Much could not be made of this circumstance. The doctor had initialled the alteration. The prosecution has not \made any attempt to declare A B D E ff B D E G H 278 SUPkBME cOUkT kBPOld's [1982) 3 s.c.il. t~d'. doctor a h<;>stile witness and to cross-examine her. Therefore'tbc change in the name could be a bonafide mistake. That apart, the injured was fully cons- cious at the time he made the statement to the doctor, [282 A-CJ (b) The High Court was in error in. stating that there was no particular coluiiln in the hospital register in which the name of the assailcint could be men- tioned. The entire part of the register where the statement had been recorded by the doctor is described as the "RegiStrar's note" which comprehends everything including the nature of injuries to the injured, any statement made by him or similar other matters. [281 E-F] (c) There is no-evidence on record to show that the doctor was in any way friendly with the appellant or inimical towards the injured man; she was an absolutely dis-interested and independent witness. (281 OJ ~ 2 (a) The High Court had erred in holding that the doctor's evidence was inadmissible in that the provisions of section 145 of the Evidence Act had not been complied with. [282 F] (b) Section 145 applies only to cases where the same person makes two contradictory statements-either in different proceedings or in two different stages of a proceeding. If the maker of. a statement Is sought to be contradicted, his attention should be drawn to bis previous statements under section 145, that is to say, where the statements made by a person or a witness is contradicted not by bis own statement but by the statement of another prosecution witness the question ofapplicatioo of section 145 docs not arise. [283 A-CJ (c) The doctor's .stateme11t was an admission of a Prosecution witness. If it was inconsistent with the statement made by another prosecuti1)n witness there .was no question of application of section 145 of the Evidence Act. [283-.C] In the instant case the statement of the injured to the doctor being first in · 'point of time it must be preferred to any subecqueot statement made by the injured. There is much evidence to show that the injured did not know the appc} .. Jant before the date of the incident. No test identification parade had been held. The appellant wa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.