In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam – Crl.M.C. Nos. 6397 of 2013; 526 of 2014; 917 of 2015; 1465 of 2015; 8621 of 2017; 8652 of 2017 (consolidated)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW** **TUESDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6397 of 2013** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 20/2012 of ADDL.C.J.M.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 4:** **1 DR.T.KESAVAN AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.DR.P.ACHUTHA MENON, "SREEPADAM", CHEMBUKKAVU ROAD,CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** **2 DR.JOHN AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.N.P.JOSE, 'NEELAKKAVIL VEEDU', OLARIKKARA OIL MILL ROAD, PULLAZHI,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:2:-** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO.578/2008 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).** ***2.** **GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER AGED 53 YEARS, S/O VASUDEVA PANICKER, H.NO.5/896, MANNAYAM ROAD PULIARKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004** ***(ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.3.2014 IN CRL.M.APPL. NO.10875 OF 2013 IN CRL.M.C. 6397 OF 2013)** **SRI.B.DEEPAK SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM) SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS** **SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.NOS.526/2014, 917/2015, 1465/2015 8621/2017 & 8652/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:3:-** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW** **TUESDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940** **Crl.MC.No. 526 of 2014** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 20/2012 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM** **CRIME NO. 578/2008 OF Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.5 AND 6:** **1 DR.R.KASI VISWESARAN S/O.K.RAMACHANDRAN, HOUSE NO.TARA - 94, THAMPURANKUNNU, KUNNUKUZHI, VANJIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 35.** **2 DR.SYAM K.REMESH S/O.K.REMESAN, RESIDING AT SREE KRISHNA, ARA-164, KALAKAWMUDI ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:4:-** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.NO.6397/2013 & CONN. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **-:5:-** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW** **TUESDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940** **Crl.MC.No. 917 of 2015** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 20/2012 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM** **CRIME NO. 578/2008 OF Medical College Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:** **DR. MATHEW ABRAHAM AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.P.T.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT BELMONT, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SMT.J.KASTHURI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:6:-** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM**| |***2.**|**V.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER**| ||**S/O VASUDEVA PANICKER,**| ||**NOW RESIDING AT MAKAYIRAM**| ||**HOUSE NO.5/896,**| ||**PULIYARKKONAM P.O.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| ||**NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE**| ||***(ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED**| ||**13.11.2018 IN CRL.M.APPL. NO.5315 OF 2016 IN**| ||**CRL.M.C. 917 OF 2015)**| ||**SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**| **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.NO.6397/2013 & CONN. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:7:-** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW** **TUESDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940** **Crl.MC.No. 1465 of 2015** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 20/2012 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM** **CRIME NO. 578/2008 OF Medical College Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED:** **DR.SALIAMMA JOSEPH AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.LATE DR.THOMAS VARGHESE, RESIDING AT PLAMTHOTTATIL, KALEEKKAL VEEDU, G.S.S.NAGAR, N.C.C.ROAD, KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SMT.MERRY GEORGE SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.NO.6397/2013 & CONN. CASES,** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:8:-** **THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW** **TUESDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940** **Crl.MC.No. 8621 of 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 5488/1999 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 68/2010 of I ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **V. GOPALAKRISHNAN I.P.S. NO. PRA 92, MADUTHALA BHAGAVATHY KSHETHRAM ROAD, POOJAPURA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM) SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN - 31.** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:9:-** **2 DR. MATHEW ABRAHAM S/O. LATE P.T ABRAHAM, BELMONT, VALLAKADAV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008.** **SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SMT.P.PARVATHY SMT.SURYA P SHAJI SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.U.M.HASSAN SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.NO.6397/2013 & CONN. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:10:-** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW** **TUESDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940** **Crl.MC.No. 8652 of 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 20/2012 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 68/2010 of I ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM** **CRIME NO. 253/2016 OF Cantonment Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **V.GOPALAKRISHNAN I.P.S NO.PRA 92, MADUTHALA BHAGAVATHY KSHETHRAM ROAD, POOJAPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM) SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN-31.** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:11:-** **2 DR. MATHEW ABRAHAM S/O.LATE P.T.ABRAHAM, BELMONT, VALLAKADAV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695008.** **SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SMT.P.PARVATHY SMT.SURYA P SHAJI SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.U.M.HASSAN SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.NO.6397/2013 & CONN. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:12:-** ## **-----------------------------------------** **Crl.M.C. Nos. 6397 of 2013, 526 of 2014, 917 of 2015, 1465 of 2015, 8621 of 2017 & 8652 of 2017 -----------------------------------------** ## **ORDER** One Dr.Mathew Abraham (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused-doctor') was a Post-Graduate student in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram in the year 1998. On 26.11.1998 a patient by name Vinoy, who was undergoing treatment at the Medical College Hospital, allegedly assaulted a Medical College student by name Dr.Tom Kurian. Some students of the Medical College including the accused-doctor assaulted the relatives of the patient, Vinoy, and ransacked the office of the Principal of the Medical College. In relation to the incidents Crime No.217 of 1998 was registered against Vinoy for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and three cases were registered Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:13:-** against the accused-doctor and some others: Crime No.218 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 307, 323, 341 read with section 149 IPC, Crime No.219 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 332 read with section 149 IPC and Crime No.220 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 448 r/w Section 149 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 at the Medical College Police Station. Circle Inspector of Police, Sri.Gopalakrishnan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused-police officer’), who later became Inspector General of Police, took over the investigation in Crime No.218 of 1998 on 27.11.1998. On the next day the Sub Inspector of Police of the local station arrested the accuseddoctor and a few other co-accused and produced them before the Judicial Magistrate concerned. The latter made a complaint to the learned Magistrate that the accused-police officer tortured him in custody. The learned Magistrate registered a case, C.M.P. No.6804 of 1998, and issued a direction to admit the accuseddoctor in General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The accuseddoctor would say that at the General Hospital he was examined by two doctors from the Medical College (the petitioners in Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:14:-** Crl.M.C. No.526 of 2014) and they found that he had sustained injuries on his kidney and liver; accordingly, the doctor, under whose treatment he was (the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.1465 of 2015), referred him to the Medical College Hospital, where ultra sound scan was taken; the scan report confirmed that he had sustained injuries on his kidney and liver; he was sent back to the General Hospital for treatment. The State Police Chief entrusted the investigation in Crime No.217, 218, 219 and 220 of 1998 to CBCID, which re-registered the cases as Crime Nos.267/CR/98, 268/CR/98, 269/CR/98 and 270/CR/98 respectively. Crime No.268 and Crime No.269 were clubbed together. After his discharge from the General Hospital the accused-doctor filed C.M.P. No.514 of 1999 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvananthapuram alleging that the accused-police officer attempted to cause his death by assaulting him while he was in his custody and he thus committed the offences under Sections 307, 325, 326 and 506 IPC and Section 42(e) and (f) of the Kerala Police Act. The complaint was later transferred to the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, where it was re-numbered as C.M.P. Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:15:-** No.5488 of 1999. Meanwhile, on the information given by the accused-doctor Crime No.86/CR/99 was registered by the CBCID in connection with the very same incident for the offences under Sections 294(b), 307, 323, 325, 326 and 506 IPC. At the same time, on 27.3.2008 the Government granted sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the accused-police officer. The accused-police officer on 24.10.2008 filed C.M.P. No.4928 of 2008 in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that the accused-doctor and some others made false entries in the treatment records of the accused-doctor and made false records in connection with his treatment. The learned Magistrate forwarded it to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, Crime No.578 of 2008 was registered at the Medical College Police Station against the accused-doctor and some other doctors for the offences under Sections 193, 196, 417, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. The investigating officer filed a final report, which was taken on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram as C.C. No.20 of 2012. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 120B, 193, 196, 201, 204, 211, 417, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. The Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:16:-** accused-doctor is the first accused in that case. On 19.10.2011 the Government recalled the order granting sanction for the prosecution of the accused-police officer. On 2.12.2011 the accused-doctor filed a representation before the State Police Chief to register a case against the accused-police officer and another person alleging that they committed theft of his treatment records from the General Hospital where he was treated for the injuries sustained by him while he was in custody of the accused-police officer. In W.P.(C) 22940 of 2011 this court quashed the order recalling the order granting sanction to prosecute the accused-police officer. In November 2013 the accused-doctor filed a complaint in the Magistrate Court alleging that the accused-police officer and some others committed theft of his original treatment records from the General Hospital and they committed the offences under Sections 120B, 201, 379, 426 and 477 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the complaint under Chapter XV Cr.P.C. Later the accused-doctor sent an identical complaint to some superior police officers. It resulted in the registration of Crime No.253 of 2016 at Cantonment Police Station, Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:17:-** Thiruvananthapuram. Later, the investigation was entrusted to the CBCID which registered the case as Crime 106/CR/OCW1/Tvm/2016. On 31.3.2017 the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala sent a communication to the State Police Chief to the effect that a case cannot be registered on the basis of the complaint of the accused-doctor that the accused-police officer and others committed theft of his treatment records as the police had already registered Crime No.578 of 2008 in connection with the very same incident. 2. Final report in Crime No.267/CR/98 in which the patient Vinoy allegedly assaulted a doctor was taken on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvananthapuram as C.C. No.545 of 2001. The final report in Crime 268/CR/98 and 269/CR/98 registered against the accused-doctor and some other students of the Medical College was taken on the file of the Magistrate as C.C. No.543 of 2001. The final report in Crime 270/CR/98 in which the accused-doctor and other students of the Medical College were accused was taken on the file of the learned Magistrate as C.C. No.544 of 2001. 3. The trial of the accused in C.C. No.543 of 2001 and C.C. Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:18:-** No.545 of 2001 ended in their acquittal. The prosecutor withdrew from prosecution in C.C. No.544 of 2001 and accordingly, the proceedings were terminated. 4. In Crime No.86/C.R/99 in which the allegation was that the accused-police officer tortured the accused-doctor in custody the investigating officer reported that the allegations were false. 5. The complaint-case in which the accused - police officer allegedly assaulted the accused-doctor - after committal - is now pending in the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram as S.C. No.68 of 2010. It is sought to be quashed in Crl.M.C. No.8621 of 2017. 6. The final report in Crime No.578 of 2008 in which the accused-doctor and other doctors allegedly forged the treatment records of the former is now pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as C.C. No.20 of 2012. The proceedings in it are sought to be quashed in Crl.M.C. No.917 of 2015 filed by the first accused doctor, Crl.M.C. No.6397 of 2013 filed by the accused 2 and 4, Crl.M.C. No.526 of 2014 filed by accused 5 and 6 and Crl.M.C. No.1465 of 2015 filed by the 8[th] accused. 7. Final report in Crime No.253 of 2016 in which the Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:19:-** accused-police officer allegedly committed theft of the treatment records of the accused-doctor has not yet been filed since the investigation is not complete. The FIR in it is sought to be quashed in Crl.M.C. No.8652 of 2017. Crl.M.C. No.8621 of 2017 8. The accused-doctor and others, against whom cases were registered for assaulting a patient of the Medical College Hospital, were taken into custody by the police in the early hours of 28.11.1998 and taken to the local police station. The accused-police officer was the investigating officer. He allegedly slapped the accused-doctor, hit him in the abdomen and on the back and stamped and kicked him wearing boots; he held the accused-doctor's head between his knees and punched him repeatedly on his back with a paper weight made of glass. Further, the accused-police officer threatened to do away with him telling him that he would ensure a slow death to him. The former had enmity towards the elder brother of the accuseddoctor in connection with a trade union dispute. The accuseddoctor was produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First ClassII, who remanded him to judicial custody. He complained of Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:20:-** torture in custody. Pursuant to the directions of the learned Magistrate he was taken to General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, where he was admitted as an inpatient. He would say in his complaint that at the General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram he was examined by two doctors from Medical College Hospital and on their advice he was taken to SAT Hospital which is under the Principal of the Medical College Hospital. Scanning done at the SAT Hospital proved that he had sustained injuries on his kidney and liver. He was taken back to the General Hospital and was discharged only on 2.1.1999. 9. The order taking cognizance is vitiated for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is the first ground of attack by the petitioner. In fact, the Government accorded sanction to prosecute him. But that was after cognizance was taken. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner sanction should have been given before cognizance was taken and sanction given after cognizance was taken is bad in law, for which he relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in **Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh** (AIR 1966 SC 220). 10. The question of validity of the sanction given by the Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:21:-** Government does not arise at all because this is a case where sanction is not necessary. In **P.P.Unnikrishnan and Another** **v. Puttiyottil Alikutty and Another** (AIR 2000 SC 2952) the Supreme Court held that a police officer who assaults a prisoner inside a lockup cannot claim the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. 11. The next ground pleaded by the petitioner is that the complaint was filed only to harass him. It was filed years after the occurrence only with the object of denying him, who is on the verge of retirement, his pensionary benefits and the complaint is devoid of merit. 12. The learned Magistrate examined CW1 to CW8 and marked Exhibits C1 to C13 during the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. He acted upon the treatment records of the accuseddoctor to order issuance of process to the accused-police officer. Thereafter, he committed the case to the Court of Session. The legality of this order is challenged. 13. The original treatment records of the accused-doctor are admittedly missing from the General Hospital. He produced only photocopies of the records. Annexure R2 are photocopies of the records. But they are not certified copies. He would say Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:22:-** that the original records were stolen from the General Hospital by the accused-police officer and others. On the other hand, the accused-police officer would say that the doctors made false entries in the treatment records and made other false records to create evidence of torture and took photocopies of the forged documents and destroyed the original so that the evidence of forgery is destroyed for ever. 14. Is the learned Magistrate justified in acting upon the photocopies of the treatment records produced by the accuseddoctor? If those photocopies could be acted upon, are they sufficient to proceed against the accused-police officer? These are the two questions coming up for consideration. 15. It has already been noted that the accused-doctor had lodged a complaint with the police on 22.4.1999 alleging torture in police custody and the CBCID registered Crime 86/CR/99 on the basis of the complaint. The investigation revealed that the allegations were false and accordingly, the investigating officer filed a report in the court concerned. 16. Section 64 of the Evidence Act mandates that the contents of a document shall be proved by primary evidence Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:23:-** which means the original documents. But exceptions are given in Section 65 of the Evidence Act. To entitle a party to adduce secondary evidence it is necessary for him to lay foundation for reception of secondary evidence. He should explain the nonavailability of the original records. He should establish that the photocopy produced by him is secondary evidence contemplated by Section 63 of the Evidence Act. 17. The copy of the treatment records produced by the accused-doctor is said to have been issued by CW16 Dr.Thankam, who was Medical Superintendent of the General Hospital. It is a public document. Its custodian can issue only a certified copy of it, for which an application is necessary. Irregularity in issuing the photocopy to the accused-doctor is clear. It is an unauthorised copy. 18. Assuming that the photocopy of the treatment records could have been acted upon, I shall consider whether it was sufficient for the learned Magistrate to hold that there was sufficient reason to proceed against the accused-police officer. 19. The doctor who first examined the accused-doctor saw only some bruises on his upper back. The duty doctor noted a Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:24:-** contusion also (vide Anexure R2(a) case sheet). 20. The accused-doctor would say that two doctors of the Medical College Hospital came to the General Hospital where he was undergoing treatment and examined him and found that he had sustained injuries on his kidney and liver. They could have examined him only on the orders of the competent authority and with the consent of the doctor who was treating him. Admittedly, even the photocopies of the treatment records produced by the accused-doctor do not show that the two doctors from the Medical College Hospital had any discussion with the doctor under whose treatment the accused-doctor was. The accused-doctor would say that the Government directed the two doctors to examine the accused-doctor, which is not supported by any document. In O.S. No.299 of 1999 filed by the accused-doctor attempt was made to prove that the Director of Medical Education Dr.Umadattan had given instructions to the two doctors on telephone to examine the accused-doctor. In the suit Dr.Umadathan was examined as DW1. He denied giving such instructions. (vide the judgment in the suit). 21. The accused-doctor would say that he was taken to Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:25:-** SAT Hospital, where scanning was done and it revealed that he had sustained injuries on his kidney and liver. The accuseddoctor was in judicial custody during his treatment. Nobody took the permission of the court to take him out of the General Hospital where he had been lodged pursuant to the orders passed by the court. Permission of the jail authorities also had not been taken. 22. One of the documents in Annexure-R2 treatment records of the accused-doctor is the Ultra Sound Scan Report allegedly issued from the Department of Radio Diagnosis of SAT Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. In this report it is stated that the accused-doctor had sustained injuries on kidney and liver. This is purported to be a report issued by Dr.Kesavan, Professor and Head of the Department of Radio Diagnosis (first petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.6397 of 2013). Somebody, whose identity is not disclosed, has singed it on his behalf. This is impermissible in a medico-legal case, which this court can taken judicial notice of. 23. It is seen from the reference slip issued by the General Hospital that the accused-doctor was discharged on 3.12.1998. But the date of discharge shown in the certificate bearing Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:26:-** No.5879 which also finds a place in Annexure R2(a) treatment records, is 2.1.1999. These entries were made by Dr.Sailamma Joseph (petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.1465 of 2015), who is one among the doctors who allegedly made false entries in the treatment records. 24. In **Pepsi Foods Ltd. And Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others** [(1998) 5 SCC 749] a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has observed: “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:27:-** the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 25. As mentioned earlier, the accused-doctor's case is that the accused-police officer committed theft of his original case sheet. Except this allegation there is nothing to support it. (Sworn statement of the accused-doctor was recorded by the Magistrate in his complaint-case, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure in Crl.M.C No.8652 of 2018. The foundation for his allegation of theft against the police officer is only his suspicion, he stated.) Unfortunately, the learned Magistrate did not take notice of the facts discussed above and the inherent weakness of the case in forming his opinion in the matter. It was without application of mind he issued process to the accused-police officer. The complaint is liable to be quashed. Crl.M.C. No.8652 of 2017 26. The accused-doctor sent a complaint to top police Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:28:-** officers alleging that his original treatment records were stolen from the General Hospital and the accused-police officer is one of the offenders. The complaint was forwarded to the SHO, Cantonment Police Station who registered Crime No.253 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 120B, 201, 379, 426 and 477 IPC. This was refiled as Crime 106/CR/OCW-1/Tvm/2016 of CBCID. This is sought to be quashed mainly on the ground that one case had already been registered on the basis of the very same incident. 27. After the case was registered the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala sent the letter bearing No.24859/M1/2016/Home dated 31.3.2017 to the State Police Chief informing him that the police had already registered Crime No.578 of 2008 at the Medical College Police Station on the information given by the accused-police officer and registration of a case again with regard to the very same incident was illegal. The essence of the allegation in Crime No.578 of 2008 was that certain doctors forged treatment records of the accused-doctor There was no allegation of commission of theft of the records. In the case registered on the basis of the complaint of the accused- Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:29:-** doctor the allegation is that the accused-police officer committed theft of the records. The incidents alleged in the two cases, the offences alleged to have been committed and the persons who allegedly committed the offences are different. Registration of two cases is not illegal. So the proceedings in Crime No.253 of 2016 cannot be quashed on the ground that the second FIR is illegal. 28. The other ground on which the FIR is sought to be quashed is that the complaint lacks _bona fides_ and the only intention of the complainant (accused-doctor) is to harass the accused-police officer, who is on the verge of retirement. 29. In November, 2013, the accused-doctor filed a complaint before the Judicial magistrate of First Class-III, Thiruvananthapuram alleging that certain persons including the accused-police officer entered into a conspiracy, pursuant to which his original treatment records were stolen from the General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. It was taken on the file of the learned Magistrate as C.M.P. No.4116 of 2013. The sworn statement of the accused-doctor was recorded on 12.2.2014. Copies of the complaint and the sworn statement have been Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:30:-** produced by the accused-police officer. After his sworn statement was recorded the accused-doctor filed C.M.P. No.4772 of 2015 requesting the learned magistrate to direct investigation by an “independent investigating agency”. This was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. It was three years later, in 2016, the accused-doctor sent a complaint to top police officers alleging that the accused-police officer and others committed the offence of theft. It is not known what prompted the accused-doctor to send the complaint to the police when his complaint was pending consideration before the learned Magistrate. 30. In the course of his sworn statement the accuseddoctor stated: “civil case നടകന അവസരര ടട case sheet മന:പർവമ�യട ജനറൽ ആ�പതടയടൽ നടന� A3 ബ�കട പതടകളടട സഹ�യത"�ടട മ�റടയത�യടരടക�ര എന� എനടക� സരശയര ഉണ�യട.” Its English translation:(”I suspected that the third accused with the help of other accused deliberately removed the case sheet during the pendency of the civil suit.) The accused police officer was the third defendant. The suit was filed in 2009 and disposed of in 2010. 31. The foundation for the allegation of theft against the accused-police officer and others is nothing but only the Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:31:-** suspicion of the accused-doctor. Merely because the records are missing from the hospital, he cannot be allowed to file a complaint alleging that it is a case of theft. Except his inference and assumptions he has not given any particulars for his believing that it is a case of theft. Unless there is a specific allegation that a cognizable offence was committed, the police cannot register a case and investigate into it. In the absence of a specific allegation that the offence of theft has been committed there is no question of the police investigating as to who committed the offence. 32. The accused-doctor had filed O.S. No.299 of 1999 in the court of the Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram for compensation for torturing him in police custody. The accusedpolice officer was the second defendant. The suit was dismissed on 9.4.2010. The learned Sub Judge found that the photocopies of the treatment records produced by the accused-doctor could not be acted upon. (It was three years later the accused-doctor filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate. If he had suspected theft of his original treatment records when the suit was being tried why he did not file a complaint for three years. Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:32:-** There is no explanation.) 33. In paragraph 9 in the complaint filed by the accuseddoctor before the learned Magistrate it is stated: “The complainant on enquiry came to know that the 3[rd] Accused with the connivance of other Accused persons during the period, initial month of 2000, had committed theft of the original case sheet and destroyed it for the purpose of causing disappearance of evidence of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life, fully knowing that such offence has been committed with intention of escaping/screening himself from legal punishment in the prosecution arising from Crl.M.P. 5488/99.” How did he come to know that the original records were stolen in the beginning of 2000? No particulars are given in the complaint. A case shall not be registered only on the basis of an allegation which anybody can raise. The proceedings in Crime No.253 of 2016 of Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram are liable to be quashed. ## Crl.M.C. Nos.6397 of 2013, 526 of 2014 and 1465 of 2015 34. The petitioner/s in Crl.M.C. No.917 of 2015, Crl.M.C. No.6397 of 2013, Crl.M.C. No.526 of 2014 and Crl.M.C. No.1465 Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:33:-** of 2015 are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, 5 and 6 and the 8[th] accused in that order in C.C. No.20 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. In these cases the petitioners are doctors. The prosecution case is that in order to create false evidence the accused-police officer tortured the accused-doctor in police custody and had caused him grievous hurt and the intention of the accused-police officer was to cause his death, the petitioners in these Crl.M.Cs entered into a conspiracy, pursuant to which false entries were made in the case sheet of the accused-doctor and created false medical reports. The proceedings in C.C. No.20 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram are sought to be quashed in these Crl.M.Cs. 35. Mention has already been made that the original case sheet and other treatment records of the accused-doctor are not available. A photocopy of those records was produced along with the final report in C.C. No.20 of 2012. The question is whether the evidence the prosecution proposes to adduce is sufficient to prove the making of false entries and creation of false reports by the petitioners or any of them. Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:34:-** 36. The investigating officer examined almost all the nurses, who were on duty at the relevant time and who maintained records in relation to the treatment of the accuseddoctor. 37. To prove forgery it is necessary to prove that the petitioners were the author of the entries or the reports. The prosecution relies on the statement of its witnesses including the nurses to prove that the records were forged. It is specifically stated by one of the nurses that the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.1465 of 2015 (Accused No.8), under whose treatment the accused-doctor was at the General Hospital, compelled her to make false entries in the nurses' records. But unfortunately the original records are not available. 38. The petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.6397 of 2013 (Accused Nos.2 and 4) were the doctors attached to the department of Radiology at the SAT Hospital. The allegation against them is that they created false reports to show that the accused-doctor was brought to the SAT hospital and scanning was done and that they created false reports to show that the accused-doctor sustained injuries on his kidney and liver. Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:35:-** 39. The petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.526 of 2014 (Accused Nos.5 and 6) were the doctors working in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The allegation against them is that they made false entries to prove that they examined the accused-doctor at the General Hospital during his treatment at the General Hospital. 40. The petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.1465 of 2015 (Accused No.8) was the doctor who treated the accused-doctor at the General Hospital. It is specifically alleged that she made false entries in the case sheet showing that the accused-doctor was treated there from 28.11.1998 till 2.1.1999, though he had been discharged earlier. 41. To prove forgery the prosecution has to prove that the petitioners are the authors of the disputed entries or records. The investigating officer did not ask any of the prosecution witnesses who could have identified the handwriting of the petitioners or some of them, to identify their handwriting. None of these witnesses stated to the police that the case sheet or any other document which contained false entries alleged to have been created are in the handwriting of any of the petitioners. Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:36:-** That apart, the disputed documents were not sent for expert evidence. Thus the prosecution does not even propose to adduce any evidence to prove the authorship of the alleged false entries in the treatment records and of the false reports. It follows that the materials relied on by the production do not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners. The proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. In the result, Crl.M.C. No.8621 of 2017 is allowed. The proceedings in S.C. No.68 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed. Crl.M.C. No.8652 of 2017 is allowed. The proceedings in Crime 106/CR/OCW-1/Tvm/2016 of CBCID, which was refiled from Crime No.253 of 2016 of Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed. Crl.M.C. No.6397 of 2013, 526 of 2014, 917 of 2015 and 1465 of 2015 are allowed. The proceedings as against them in C.C. No.20 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed. Sd/- ## **K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE** vps 23/10 **-:37:-** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 6397/2013** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE 1** **A COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.578/2008 WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.C.20/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **ANNEXURE II** **A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT BY WHICH THE IST ACCUSED WAS ARRESTED AND DETAINED IN CUSTODY BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT** ## **ANNEXURE III** **A COPY OF THE COMMITTAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN THE CASE WHICH WAS INSTITUTED AT THE INSTANCE OF IST ACCUSED AGAINST THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S'EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE-R2(a)** **TYPE WRITTEN EXTRACT OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.11.98** ## **ANNEXURE-R2(b)** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE DATED 14.10.2008 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005** **ANNEXURE-R2(c)** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.4.2007 ISSUED TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:38:-** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 526/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.578 OF 2008 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 23/10/2008.** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION DATED 27/11/1998 CONTAINING THE ORDERS OF THE COURT BELOW DATED 28/11/1998. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27/1/1999. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/11/2009 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 23/10/2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:39:-** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 917/2015** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN**| |---|---| ||**CRIME NO.578/08 CHARGE SHEETING THE**| ||**PETITIONER AND NINE OTHER ACCUSED,**| ||**WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS CC 20/12 ON THE**| ||**FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL**| ||**MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT BY WHICH**| ||**THE IST ACCUSED WAS ARRESTED AND**| ||**DETAINED IN CUSTODY BY THE DEFACTO**| ||**COMPLAINANT.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CASE SHEET OF THE**| ||**GENERAL HOSPITAL FROM 28.11.98 TO**| ||**4.12.98.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE O.P REFERRAL CARD OF**| ||**MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL DATED 4.12.98.**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ULTRA SOUND SCAN**| ||**REPORT DATED 4.12.98.**| |**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE O.P REFERRAL CARD OF**| ||**MEDICAL**<br>**COLLEGE**<br>**HOSPITAL**<br>**DATED**| ||**15.12.98.**| |**ANNEXURE A7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ULTRA SOUND SCAN**| ||**REPORT DATED 15.12.98.**| |**ANNEXURE A8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER DATED 27.01.99 AGAINST THE**| ||**DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.**| |**ANNEXURE A9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.09**| ||**OF THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE TAKING**| ||**COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE**| ||**DEFACTO COMPLAINANT, IN CRMP 5488/99.**| Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:40:-** |**ANNEXURE A10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED**| |---|---| ||**22.10.08**<br>**FILED**<br>**BY**<br>**THE**<br>**DEFACTO**| ||**COMPLAINANT AGAINST THE PETITIONER**| ||**BEFORE THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE.**| |**ANNEXURE A11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FIR 578/08 OF MEDICAL**| ||**COLLEGE**<br>**POLICE**<br>**STATION,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**<br>**DATED**<br>**23.10.08**| ||**REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF ANNEXURE A9**| ||**COMPLAINT.**| |**ANNEXURE A12**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF**| ||**THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN CC 20/12**| ||**TAKING**<br>**COGNIZANCE**<br>**AGAINST**<br>**THE**| ||**PETITIONER AND OTHER ACCUSED.**| ## **RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS:** **NIL** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:41:-** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1465/2015** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.578/2008 CHARGE SHEETING THE PETITIONER AND NINE OTHER ACCUSED, WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO.20/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-11-2009 OF THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN CRL. M.P.NO.5488/1999** - **ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 22-10-2008 AS CRL.M.P.4928/2008 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT** - **ANNEXURE-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 156(3) CR.PC FORWARDED BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE TO THE MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE WHICH REGISTERED FIR NO.578/2008** - **ANNEXURE-A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CC NO.20/2012** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS:** **NIL** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:42:-** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 8621/2017** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 ORDER IN CMP 5488/1999 DATED 17.11.2009 ON THE FILE OF ACJM COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CASE SHEET (CASE SHEET NO.26286/1998) OF THE GENERAL HOSPITAL OF THE TREATMENT FROM 28.11.1998 TO 2.1.1999 ANNEXURE R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. REFERRAL CARD DATED 4.12.1998 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL ANNEXURE R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ULTRA SOUND SCAN REPORT DATED 4.12.1998 ANNEXURE R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. REFERRAL CARD OF MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL DATED 15.12.1998 ANNEXURE R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ULTRA SOUND SCAN REPORT DATED 15.12.1998 ANNEXURE R2(f) TRUE COPY OF THE INVENTORY DATED 17.9.1999 ANNEXURE R2(g) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.9.1999 BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRODUCING ANNEXURE R2(f) INVENTORY** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases **-:43:-** |**ANNEXURE R2(h)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.MRL/**| |---|---| ||**9271/11GHT DATED 31.10.2011 BY THE**| ||**SUPERINTENDENT OF GENERAL HOSPITAL,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |**ANNEXURE R2(i)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER**| ||**NO.GO(RT)No.988/2008/HOME DATED**| ||**27.3.2008**| |**ANNEXURE R2(j)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| ||**24.6.2014 IN WP(C) NO.22940/2011**| Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:44:-** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 8652/2017** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.253/2016 OF CANTONMENT POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.03.2017 FROM THE HOME DEPARTMENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CASE SHEET (CASE SHEET NO.26286/1998) OF THE GENERAL HOSPITAL OF THE TREATMENT FROM 28.11.1998 TO 2.1.1999** **ANNEXURE R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. REFERRAL CARD DATED 4.12.1998 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL ANNEXURE R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ULTRA SOUND SCAN REPORT DATED 4.12.1998 ANNEXURE R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. REFERRAL CARD OF MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL DATED 15.12.1998 ANNEXURE R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ULTRA SOUND SCAN REPORT DATED 15.12.1998 ANNEXURE R2(f) TRUE COPY OF THE INVENTORY DATED 17.9.1999 ANNEXURE R2(g) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.9.1999 BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRODUCING ANNEXURE R2(f) INVENTORY** Crl.M.C. 6397/13 & Conn. Cases ## **-:45:-** ## **ANNEXURE R2(h)** - **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.MRL/ 9271/11GHT DATED 31.10.2011 BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **ANNEXURE R2(i) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(RT)No.988/2008/HOME DATED 27.3.2008** - **ANNEXURE R2(j) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.6.2014 IN WP(C) NO.22940/2011** - **ANNEXURE-R2(k) TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION DATED 19.2.16 SENT BY THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (CITY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **ANNEXURE-R2(l) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DGP/79/2016 DATED 24.2.2016 SENT BY THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (CITY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **ANNEXURE-R2(m) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16.5.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.16240 OF 2017** - **ANNEXURE-R2(n)** - **TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 4.4.2017 SENT BY THE KERALA STATE POLICE CHIEF**