Tamil Nadu hospitals must record who brought accident victim, not merely write ‘108’: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has directed that all government medical officers and hospitals dealing with accident cases must ensure that the name and particulars of persons who bring accident victims to the hospital is duly recorded in the Accident Register [Ramasubramanian Vs State of Tamil Nadu].

A Bench of Justices N Anand Venkatesh and KK Ramakrishnan noted that doctors frequently write “108” in the column of the Accident Register (AR) meant to identify the person who brought an injured or deceased person to the hospital.

The number "108" is used to denote that the accident victim was brought in an ambulance providing emergency services.

The Bench said that such ambiguous entries have repeatedly led to avoidable controversies during criminal trials and created unnecessary doubts regarding the credibility of eyewitnesses and other material witnesses.

The Court explained that defence lawyers often rely on such vague AR entries to argue that the victim was brought only by the ambulance service, to cast doubt on the presence of prosecution witnesses who claim to have accompanied the victim.

“The mere mention of ‘108’ refers only to the mode of transportation and does not disclose the identity of the person who brought the victim,” the Court noted.

It, therefore, directed the State and the Director of Medical Education and Research to circulate appropriate instructions to all government doctors and hospitals dealing with medico-legal cases to take corrective steps.

"This Court deems it appropriate to issue a direction to the Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, and the Director of Medical Education and Research, Tamil Nadu, to circulate suitable instructions to all Government medical officers and hospitals dealing with medico-legal cases that, in the Accident Register, the column 'கொண்டு வந்தவர்' (brought by) shall contain the name and particulars of the person who actually brought or accompanied the injured/deceased to the hospital, and not merely the entry '108' or any other mode of transportation," the Court said.

The Court issued the direction while upholding the conviction and life sentences imposed on two persons, Ramasubramanian alias Ramasubbu and Marimuthu, for murder.

The case concerned the murder of Village Administrative Officer Y Lourdu Francis in April 2023. Francis had earlier lodged complaints against Ramasubramanian and others over alleged illegal sand mining.

On April 25, 2023, Ramasubramanian and Marimuthu entered Francis’ office and attacked him with a billhook and an iron rod. Francis died in hospital later that day.

A Thoothukudi court convicted both accused men of murder, criminal trespass and criminal intimidation in September 2023.

Upholding the decision, the High Court described the incident as a “cold-blooded murder committed in broad daylight” while Francis was discharging his official duties.

The issue concerning vague entries in Accident Registers arose because the accused questioned whether Francis’ son and the Village Assistant were actually present at the scene.

Both witnesses had stated that they helped move the injured Francis from his office to the ambulance and accompanied him to hospital. However, the Accident Register mentioned only “108” in the column meant to identify the person who brought the patient.

The defence relied on this entry to question whether the witnesses had accompanied Francis from the crime scene to the hospital as claimed.

The accused also pointed out that the police had not seized any bloodstained clothes from the two eyewitnesses despite their claim that they had handled Francis while he was bleeding.

The Court rejected the argument. It found that the reference to “108” did not mean that Francis had not been accompanied by the witnesses. It merely identified the vehicle in which he was transported.

While upholding the murder conviction, the Court also directed the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary to consult the Director General of Police and the prosecution department and issue a circular prescribing structured timelines for the investigation and trial of serious offences.

It cited the present case as a model since the investigation and trial were completed in less than five months without compromising fairness or due process.

The Bench further laid down guiding principles for dealing with allegations that the police had suppressed an earlier First Information Report (FIR). This was after the defence raised an argument that the police had deliberately suppressed an earlier visit to the crime scene and the lodging of a prior complaint, which struck at the credibility of the criminal case at hand.

The Court, however, held that every cryptic or preliminary information that prompts the police to visit a crime scene cannot be treated as an FIR.

"The mere non-production of such cryptic information does not, by itself, vitiate the prosecution case," it added.

An accused raising a claim of suppression of prior FIR or information must establish that the earlier information disclosed a cognisable offence, contained material particulars about the crime and the accused, and was recorded by a competent officer in accordance with Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court said.

"Unless these foundational facts are established by the defence, no inference can be drawn that the prosecution has suppressed an earlier First Information," it held.

Advocate M Jegadeesh Pandiyan represented the convicts.

Government Counsel C Christopher appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]