Sigismund s/o Heremenigridi v. R., Crim. App. 497-D-67, 18/8/67, Saidi, J.

Sigismund s/o Heremenigridi v. R., Crim. App. 497-D-67, 18/8/67, Saidi, J.

Accused was convicted of doing grievous harm [ P.C. s. 225], on evidence clearly showing that it was he who had assaulted the complainant. A medical report on the complainant’s injuries was apparently received as evidence by the court, but not shown to accused. The doctor who had prepared the report was not called as witness.

            Held: (1) Under the Criminal Procedure Code, section 213, the court must, upon request by the accused, make available for examination the doctor who has prepared a medical report received in evidence. Therefore, the court is obliged to inform an accused of his right to cross-examine the doctor, and its failure to so inform the accused here was error. (2) However, the error here was not “a serious omission which would go to the root of the case,” as it was clear that the accused had assaulted the complainant, and as the report itself seemed to be in order.