Sheetal Ram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 354 Chatt

                            1

     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                  CRA No. 3293 of 1999

• Sheetal Ram Sahu

                                                ---- Appellant

                         Versus

• State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now CG)

                                             ---- Respondent

___________________________________________________

Post for pronouncement of the judgment on _21.01.2022

___ _Sd/-______ JUDGE

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Judgment reserved on : 01.10.2021

Judgment delivered on : 21 .01.2022

CRA No. 3293 of 1999

• Sheetal Ram Sahu, S/o. Jhadi Ram Sahu, Aged about 28 years, R/o. Village Deori, Police Station Arjunda, District Durg MP (Now CG)

---- Appellant

Versus

• The State Of Madhya Pradesh. Through Station House Officer, Police Sation Arjunda, District Durg MP (Now CG)

---- Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Anurag Verma, PL

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Judgment

21/01/2022

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 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. 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 gangerine. 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.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 izek.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.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

suguna