MEDICAL EVIDENCE Vis-a- Vis OCULAR EVIDENCE: Primacy given to ocular evidence
High Court, for acquitting the respondents, had mainly relied upon the medical evidence in a very appropriate manner. When the doctor (PW7) in his examination-in-chief had categorically stated that the incident could have occurred at 8.00 a.m. which corroborated the case of the informant, there was no reason to disbelieve this fact to hold that the incident occurred between 2.00 to 4.00 a.m. merely basing on a vague statement made by the doctor in the cross- examination. Also we believe that merely for the reason that no blunt injuries were present on the deceased, the whole evidence of PW1 cannot be discarded as primacy has to be given to the ocular evidence, particularly in the case of minor discrepancies.
Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2005, decided on February 26, 2016; [Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana, JJ.]
“Casual Employees”: Covered Under ESI Act
It is apparent from Section 39 that an employee who is employed for a part of the wage period is also covered for the purposes of contribution. The definition of the term “employee” in Section 2(9) is also wide enough to cover casual employees who are employed for part of wage period. The employees work for the day of racing which is perennial activity of Royal Turf Club and in view of the provisions of the Act, the Rules , the Regulations and the Notification dated 18-9-1978, there is no doubt that such employees are covered and consequently are entitled for benefit of the Act.
Royal Western India Turf Club Limited v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and Others, Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2006, decided on February 29, 2016; [V. Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra, JJ.]
Expert Opinion: Perjury
The duty of an expert is to furnish to the court his opinion and the reasons for his opinion along with all the materials. It is for the court, thereafter, to see whether the basis of the opinion is correct and proper and then form its own conclusion.
Merely because an expert has tendered an opinion while also furnishing the basis of the opinion and that too without being conclusive and definite, it cannot be said that he has committed perjury so as to help somebody. And, mere rejection of the expert evidence by itself may not also warrant initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
Prem Sagar Manocha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal Nos. 9-10 of 2016, decided on January 6, 2016; [Dr. T.S. Thakur , C.J. and Kurian Joseph, J.]
Submission Of OBC Certificate
The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa Case, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281. In that case, the Single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the OBC certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC category. The Single Judge in Pushpa case correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney, 1992 Supp(3) SCC 217 as well as Valsamma Paul, (1996) 3 SCC 545.
The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39- A of the directive principles of State Policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge.Ram Kumar Gijorya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another,
Civil Appeal No. 1691 of 2016, decided on February 24, 2016; [Dr. T.S. Thakur, CJ. and V. Gopala Gowda, J.]
Re-Opening Of Medical Certification: Fraud In Disabilty Certificates
The division bench of the High Court has ignored and overlooked the material fact that verification has already been done by the medical board and it has been found that certificates of 21% were fraudulently obtained. The High Court has overlooked that on mere physical verification it may not be possible to know various kinds of disabilities such as that of eyes, ear impairment, etc. that can only be done by the medical examination and particularly when the High Court has itself observed that in case there is genuine suspicion and fraud has been committed, medical certification can be re-opened.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Ravindra Kumar Sharma and others, Criminal Appeal No. 758/ 16, decided on 3-2-2016; [M. Yusuf Eqbal and Arun Mishra, JJ.]