Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 45 (CHH)

Sheetal Ram Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-01-21

RAJANI DUBEY

body2022
JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 20.11.99 passed by the Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 1999 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 420; to undergo RI for four years and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 467; to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 468; to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 471 with default stipulations. 2. As per prosecution case, complainant Dilip Kumar son of Jhumuk Lal lodged a report on 14.10.1998 at Police Station Arjunda alleging that the appellant has administered injection to his father as a result of which there was swelling in his hand and when he complained to the appellant, he administered another injection. It is further alleged that on account of which his father was admitted at district hospital Rajnandgaon, where he died. Merg intimation was given, thereafter panchnama was prepared and the body was sent for postmortem examination. After filing of the charge sheet, trial judge has framed charge under Sections 304, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned, the Court below has acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304 IPC but has convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the court below has erred in law by convicting the appellant under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant is guilty of the said offences. It is further submitted that no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution in respect of the fabrication of documents. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any intention on the part of the appellant to get Jhumuklal treated by him. Counsel for the appellant submits that the court below has erred in law by convicting him under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any intention on the part of the appellant to get Jhumuklal treated by him. Counsel for the appellant submits that the court below has erred in law by convicting him under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The trial court has acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 304 IPC and under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant is guilty for other offences. In this case, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution in respect of the fabrication of the documents. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was no instigation on the part of the appellant to get Jhumuklal treated by him. This aspect of the matter has also been ignored by the trial court. The prosecution evidence suffers from infirmities and cannot be relied upon therefore, the judgment dated 20.11.1993 is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Dilip Kumar (PW-1) son of Jhumuklal has stated that his father was injured while plucking ivy gourd from the backyard therefore he took him to Dr. Sheetal for treatment. He has stated that the doctor prescribed for medicine and injection and at about 12-1.00 noon, he administered the injection to his father and at night, there was swelling in his hand and turned black. On the next day, he called the doctor and again he administered injection to him on his back and thereafter he did dressing on the injured portion. He has stated that in the next morning, condition of his father became more worse and therefore the doctor (appellant) advised to take him to Government Hospital Nikum. His father was admitted for 3-4 days and thereafter the doctors advised to shift him to higher center. After mutual consent between the appellant/doctor and the villagers, it was decided that the appellant would look after the expenses for the treatment of Jhumuk Lal (since deceased) and twice he paid 500/-. His father was shifted to the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. He has stated that when he demanded for more money from Dr. Sheetal, he and his brother Rohit began maar-peeth with him. Similar statement has been made by Bhokhram @ Bhoklal Sahu. His father was shifted to the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. He has stated that when he demanded for more money from Dr. Sheetal, he and his brother Rohit began maar-peeth with him. Similar statement has been made by Bhokhram @ Bhoklal Sahu. He has stated that at first he paid Rs. 500/- but later on he denied to pay. Bisouha Ram (Pw-3), Daua (PW-4) and Ram Kumar Ruchandani have not supported the prosecution case. Dr. S.R. Chandrakar (PW-8) has stated that he has examined Jhumuk Lal on 28.08.1998 who was suffering from ulcer and due to reaction, he got bacterial infection resulting to gangrene. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to how old was the injury suffered by Jhumuk Lal. Dr. P. Mishra (PW-9) has conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased Jhumuk Lal vide Ex. P-10) and opined that the death was due to Septicemic shock. He has stated that septic might cause if the needle of the syringe is not sterilized and injected to a person. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there was no mark found on the left side of his waist. 9. The trial court has acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 304-A IPC but has convicted him under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The trial court has found that Dhanush Ram (physician) has denied that he recognizes the appellant but has admitted that the appellant appeared in the medical examination from his centre. The trial court has also found that twice the accused gave Rs. 500/- to the complainant and it has been proved that the appellant has agreed to pay half of the expenses for the treatment of Jhumuk Lal (since deceased) as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act (in the Extra Judicial Confession). 10. In the present case, complainant Dilip Kumar and his brother Vivek Ram have not stated as to how much amount was paid to them by the appellant. Dhanush Ram Sahu (Vaidhya) has stated that the correspondence examination is conducted from their Center and that a person named Sheetal has also appeared in the said examination. Dr. P.K. Bondriya (PW-11) has stated that he has issued the certificate (Ex. Dhanush Ram Sahu (Vaidhya) has stated that the correspondence examination is conducted from their Center and that a person named Sheetal has also appeared in the said examination. Dr. P.K. Bondriya (PW-11) has stated that he has issued the certificate (Ex. P-12) on the basis of which, the appellant has been registered at Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Council, Patna Bhiar and is not eligible to practice in the State of Madhya Pradesh as per the Act. 11. The trial court has framed charge against the appellant which is as under: ^^D;k vfHk;qDr 'khryjke us jtdh; vk;qosZfnd ;qukuh fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ fcgkj ¼iVuk½ ds fuca/ku&i= dk NyiwoZd MkWDVjh fpfdRlk ds fy;s mi;ksx dj vlyh Áek.k&i= ¿nLrkostÀ ds #i esa mi;ksx fd;k \** 12. But the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the appellant has fabricated this document. Vaidh Dhanush Ram Sahu (PW-7) has admitted that he conducted the examination of Vaidhya Parishad Ayurvedic Ratna and the appellant has appeared in the correspondence examination. Dr. P.K. Bondriya (PW-11) has also stated that the certificate issued to the appellant is registered at Patna, Bihar and that it is not a forged document. The trial court has found that the appellant is practicing as a doctor in Devri and he does not have any documentary proof in this regard. Further, the trial court has found that the appellant has fraudulently used the certificate issued by the Vaidhya Parishad, Patna at Bihar and the villagers were treated by him without holding any degree, educational qualification or certificate of registration. This finding is not based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. 13. From the above observation and findings, the findings of the court below are not based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The appellant is acquitted the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 20.11.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in S.T. No. 62/1999 is hereby set aside. The fine, if realized, be refunded to him forthwith.