Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1297 (JHR)

Ram Lakhan Mehta v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-22

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2014
JUDGMENT The sole appellant Ram Lakhan Mehta has assailed his conviction under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.III, Daltonganj who has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case, which is based on the information of Baidnath Mehta (P.W.2) the husband of the deceased, is that on 09.03.2001 at about 4 p.m. one Alkari Devi came to his house and persuaded his wife Kalawati Devi to go to the clinic of Ram Lakhan Mehta, the appellant, for termination of her pregnancy. The informant asked his wife not to take risk as it was four months pregnancy and thereafter went outside. When in the evening at about 6 p.m. he returned, his wife was not present in the house and on enquiry his minor son informed that said Alkari Devi had taken his mother with her. He immediately went to the clinic of the appellant where he found the dead body of his wife. He informed the villagers and they all came to the house of the appellant. It is also alleged that with the help of villagers he took the dead body of his wife to the police station on 10.03.2001 i.e. on the next date whereafter Hussainabad P.S. Case No.29 of 2001 dated 10.03.2001 was registered against the present appellant and Alkari Devi under Sections 314/316 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both the accused persons under Sections 314/316 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, charges were framed against the two under the above provisions of I.P.C. 4. It may be stated at this stage that the said Alkari Devi, who was tried along with appellant in the trial court, was acquitted on the ground that there is no evidence against Alkari Devi implicating her with the alleged crime and witnesses have not stated anything against her. 5. The principal ground canvassed by Shri Kashyap, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that there is no evidence on the basis of which it can be conclusively established that the present appellant did any act that could have resulted in the death of Kalawati Devi, the deceased. 5. The principal ground canvassed by Shri Kashyap, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that there is no evidence on the basis of which it can be conclusively established that the present appellant did any act that could have resulted in the death of Kalawati Devi, the deceased. For this purpose, he has minutely analyzed the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Shri Kashyap relying upon ingredients responsible to constitute offence under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code further submitted that it is essential for the prosecution to demonstrate that death of the deceased Kalawati Devi was on account of the act committed by the present appellant but none of the evidence supported the prosecution version and the evidence does not inspire any confidence whatsoever. Shri Kashyap further relying upon the crucial evidence of doctor (P.W.-9) submitted that the doctor has not found any external or internal injury rather found the foetus of 12 weeks size intact and there was no any abrasion or laceration or any injury in vagina, cervix or uterous even the foetal membrane was intact and according to the doctor the deceased was not suffering from bleeding problem prior to her death and the evidence of the doctor completely demolishes the prosecution story of abortion. Learned counsel relying upon judgment reported in 1993 CRI. L.J. 722 in the case of Vatchhalabai Maruti Kshirsagar V. The State of Maharashtra submitted that nexus between acts done by accused and death of woman must be direct for convicting the accused. 6. The learned Sessions Judge while analyzing the evidence has, undoubtedly, relied on several circumstances and a certificate seized by the Investigating Officer in course of investigation (Ext. 4 & 4/1) showing enrolment of appellant under the Bye-laws of the Rural dental and medicinar practitioners welfare council as a bonifide R.M.P. in Allopathic System of Medicine for five years. The learned Sessions Judge has also come to the finding that the appellant was a quack and practicing as a doctor in the village without having any professional degree. 7. The prosecution altogether examined nine witnesses in support of its case but out of the nine witnesses P.W.1- Ranjit Mehta, P.W.3- Rajeshwar Mehta, P.W.4- Mahavir Mehta, P.W.-5 Rajendra Mehta, P.W.6- Birendra Mehta, P.W.7- Janeshwar Mehta and P.W.-8 Rammraj Mehta were declared hostiles as not supported the prosecution story. 7. The prosecution altogether examined nine witnesses in support of its case but out of the nine witnesses P.W.1- Ranjit Mehta, P.W.3- Rajeshwar Mehta, P.W.4- Mahavir Mehta, P.W.-5 Rajendra Mehta, P.W.6- Birendra Mehta, P.W.7- Janeshwar Mehta and P.W.-8 Rammraj Mehta were declared hostiles as not supported the prosecution story. However, I would like to discuss one or two lines of some of the above witnesses. P.W.1- Ranjit Mehta has not stated anything about the alleged occurrence but has only said that wife of Baidnath Mehta died four years ago and the appellant was a medical practitioner in the village. P.W.-3 while confirming the death of the wife of Baidnath Mehta three years ago failed to explain as to under what circumstances deceased had gone to the house of the appellant. In cross examination, the witness said that he had not seen the deceased getting treatment in the clinic of the appellant. P.W.-4 is father-in-law of the deceased and in his evidence he has stated that when he returned to his house in evening with his buffaloes he saw the dead body of the deceased at his door. He could not say the cause of her death. 8. The informant, who was examined as P.W.2, has stated in his evidence that his wife Kalawati Devi was having four months pregnancy and on the alleged date of occurrence when he returned to his house in the evening, his wife was not present in the house and thereafter he started searching out his wife and found the dead body of his wife in the house of Ram Lakhan Mehta, the appellant. Next morning, he took the dead body to the police station but in Paragraph 3 of examination-in-chief, he has stated that he could not say as to what was the circumstances under which his wife had gone to the house of Ram Lakhan Mehta. This witness has proved his signature on the F.I.R. (Ext.-1) but in cross examination he has stated that Daroga Jee had prepared the Fardbeyan and took his signature without reading the same. The witness has further stated that he put his signature on F.I.R. at the instance of Daroga Jee. This witness has proved his signature on the F.I.R. (Ext.-1) but in cross examination he has stated that Daroga Jee had prepared the Fardbeyan and took his signature without reading the same. The witness has further stated that he put his signature on F.I.R. at the instance of Daroga Jee. The witness in his cross examination has stated that his wife died due to excessive bleeding after abortion and further stated that his wife had bleeding problem prior to the alleged date of occurrence and he has no grievance against doctor Ram Lakhan Mehta or against Alkari Devi. 9. In the light of the aforesaid position emerging from the oral evidence, to my mind now is the turn to examine the medical evidence. The doctor, who had conducted post-mortem examination has been examined as P.W.-9 and the doctor in his ante-mortem and post-mortem report stated as follows: A prick mark was present in right cubital fossae. There was no external injury on the body. On dissection, the uterous was intact size about 12 week pregnancy. There was no blood or any foreign body in vagina, cervix or uterous. There was no abrasion or laceration in vagina. Fornyx, Cervix or Uterous: The foetal membrane was intact. Placenta was normal. There was a foetus of about 12 week size. There was no any other internal injury. The following visceras were preserved. A portion of heart, lungs, liver, splin, kidney, intestine, stomach with content and uterous. Cause of death, cannot be ascertained hence above mentioned visceras were preserved. I did not find any blood in the vagina either externally or internally. The deceased was not suffering from bleeding problem prior to her death. I cannot say as to what medicine was injected to the deceased prior to her death. 10. Here, I would like to say that neither the viscera collected by the doctor were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for its examination nor I.O. of this case was examined, but this much is clear that the pregnancy of 12 weeks was intact and there was no miscarriage and even in the opinion of the doctor, deceased was not suffering from bleeding problem prior to her death. 11. Before proceeding further, one thing is apparent that there is no eye witness of the occurrence leading to the death of the wife of the informant. 11. Before proceeding further, one thing is apparent that there is no eye witness of the occurrence leading to the death of the wife of the informant. Secondly, there was no allegation that death was caused as a result of trying to cause illegal termination of pregnancy. Thirdly, though it was stated in the written report that the deceased was brought to the appellant’s house by Alkari Devi but before the trial court, no prosecution witness made any such statement. Whereafter Alkari Devi was acquitted by the court below. Even the informant P.W.-2 has nowhere stated in his evidence that his wife had gone to the house of the appellant along with said Alkari Devi rather the informant has clearly stated that he has no grievance against the appellant. Even it appears from the evidence of this witness that during cross examination no suggestion was given to him regarding his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. The court has to specially bear in mind that any case under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code the liability have to be fastened only if it can be undisputedly demonstrated that a particular person is involved. There is apparently no eye witness in support of the prosecution story and none of the witness including the informant has said that the appellant had treated or had tried for particular act for causing miscarriage and that it was that very act which ultimately caused the death of the wife of the informant. The evidence of the informant that his wife had bleeding problem prior to the alleged date of occurrence has not been supported by the evidence of the doctor who has clearly demolished the story. However, on careful consideration of oral evidence led by P.W.2 it can only be said that the dead body of the wife of the informant was found in appellant’s house but this piece of evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant. 13. Thus, the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution in this case does not appear to me to be completely incompatible with the innocence of the appellant and to my mind it would be quite unsafe to maintain the appellant’s conviction. In my considered opinion, the appellant in this case is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 13. Thus, the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution in this case does not appear to me to be completely incompatible with the innocence of the appellant and to my mind it would be quite unsafe to maintain the appellant’s conviction. In my considered opinion, the appellant in this case is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The judgment and order passed by the trial court is accordingly set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. 14. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. Appeal allowed.