This petition is filed by the de facto complainant. An application was filed by her before the learned Magistrate under Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation. After hearing, the learned Magistrate passed a detailed order dismissing the application but without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to produce necessary documents and to summon the doctors of Amritha Hospital to prove the nature of the injury sustained by the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at length stating that unless statement of the doctor is recorded and the weapon (iron rod) with which the injury was caused is recovered, it may sometimes be made use of by the accused as a defence and so, the investigating officer may be directed to question the doctor of Amritha Hospital and also a further direction may be issued to the investigating officer to seize the iron rod with which injury was stated to have been caused.
3. The main grievance is with regard to the non- questioning of the doctors of Amritha Hospital. The observations made by the learned Magistrate in paragraph 8 of the order would show that the learned Magistrate had perused the MRI Scan reports which showed Grade-III ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament) injury on right knee and that as a result of the same caused instability of the right knee of the petitioner which in turn would attract the definition of grievous hurt - 'fourthly' of Sec.320 of IPC. It appears, the charge was not altered to Sec.326 of IPC. If the learned Magistrate finds that grievous hurt was caused by using a deadly weapon, then certainly, the charge has to be altered to Sec.326 of IPC.
4. The learned Magistrate will issue summons to the doctor/doctors with a direction to produce the treatment records of Amritha Hospital to give evidence. After such examination, if the learned Magistrate finds that the offence would fall under Sec.326 of IPC, then, it should be altered and proceeded further in accordance with law. Therefore, the prosecuting officer will file an application before the learned Magistrate to summon the doctors to appear with treatment records and to give evidence. Needless to say that when such records are received in court, copies of the same are to be furnished to the accused as well. If the prosecuting agency does not file any such application, the de facto complainant (the petitioner herein) is at liberty to file such a petition before the learned Magistrate.
5. The aforesaid direction would save time, for otherwise, if the request to examine the doctor is entertained only after the examination of other witnesses and if thereafter the doctor is examined and charge is altered again the witnesses may have to be recalled, if the defence so requests. Therefore, the better course would be to summon the doctors mentioned above to find whether the offence under Section 326 of IPC is attracted. For that purpose, no further investigation is required and as such the request for further investigation is rejected but with the direction as aforesaid.
This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.
Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Jvt