063-NLR-NLR-V-73-H.-R.-DHARMASENA-and-another-Appellants-and-SUB-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-KADUGA.pdf
Dharmasena r. Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadugannawa
359
Present: Tennekcon, J.
H. R. DHARMASENA and another, Appellants, and SUB-INSPECTOROF POLICE, KADUGANNAWA, Respondent
S. G. 1161-62/6S—M. C. Kandy, 49274
Criminal Procedure Code, as amended by Act jVo. 2d of 1061—Section 406 (-3)—•Report of a Lecturer in Forensic Medicine—Whether it can be used asevidence.
In a prosecution for causing grievous hurt, a medico-legal report of a Lecturerin Forensic Mcdicino who is not employed under tho Government as a modicalofficer is not receivable in evidence under section 406 (3) of tho CriminalProcedure Code in regard to tho nature of tho injurios in quostion.
_A.PPE.AL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Kandy.
T.IK. Rajaralnam, for the accused-appellant.
Kumar Amarasckera, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. tmil.
3C0 TENNEKOON, J.—Dharmascna v. Sub-Inspector of Police. Kadugannawa
May 21, 1969. Tennjekoox, J.:—The two accused were charged and convicted of the offence of volun-. tarily causing grievous hurt to the complainant, and were each sentencedto three months rigorous imprisonment. The evidence of the complainantand of the other supporting witness was to the effect that the two accusedtogether assaulted the complainant with hands. The complainantsustained some contusions, one of which- was on the rear aspect of hisright hand at the base of the index and middle fingers. A Medico-LegalReport signed by Dr. H. Ranasingho, Lecturer in Forensic Medicine, wasproduced and tendered in evidence. This report discloses that there-was a fracture of the second metacarpal bone under the contusion.It hardly requires to be stated that a report of this nature cannot beused in evidence unless there is some special provision of law authorisingsuch use. Under section 406 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code asamended by Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment Act) No: 25 of 1961— •
–.any document purporting to be a report (other than a
report upon a skiagraph) under the hand of a Government medicalofficer upon any person, matter or thing examined by such Governmentmedical officer, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial orproceeding under this Code
Sub-section 4 goes on to say—
" The court may presume that the signature of any such documentis genuine and that the person signing it held the office he professedto hold at the time he signed it. ”
The report that wa3 produced in this case was not signed by a personprofessing to be emplojred under the Government as a medical officer.He only claims to be a Lecturer in Forensic Medicine, and there is nothingto indicate that he holds an appointment under the Government. Crowncounsel submits that although Dr. Ranasingho may not be a Governmentmedical officer, he holds very good and probably better qualificationsin Medicine than most Government medical officers and that in fact hehas taught many of them their medicine. The abundance of academicqualifications cannot however make up for the lack of the legal quali-fication, i.e. of being a Government medical officer which alone wouldentitle his report to be used as evidence.-. The question is not one of'weight of evidence but of admissibility. : The report cannot accordinglybe used in evidence ; in the result there is no admissible evidence to provethat the injury received by the complainant was grievous in character.The finding of the learned Magistrate however, that the accused didin fact assault the complainant remains unaffected. I
I accordingly set aside the convictions and sentences and substitute-therefor the following:—The two accused are convicted of the offenceof voluntarily causing hurt punishable under section 314 of the PenalCode and each of them iq sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- in default 2weeks simple imprisonment.
Conviction altered.