Dr.Hemant Mittal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5622 MP

                                                             1
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                        CRA No. 2514 of 2022
                                    (DR.HEMANT MITTAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      Dated : 19-04-2022
                             Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.

                             Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Govt. Adv. for respondent-State.

Shri Yogesh Soni, learned counsel for complainant-objector. Heard on I.A.No.4536/2022, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant has been convicted under Section 313 of IPC and sentenced RI

for five years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 3 r/w 5 and Section 4 r/w 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act RI for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- separately in both the count and under Section 21 of POCSO Act RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that originally the name of the appellant did not find place in the FIR and his name was subsequently added after 25 days. Identification parade is totally faulty because prior to conducting identification parade, photograph of the appellant was published in the news papers. It is further submitted that the appellant is not a surgeon but he is a

homeopathy Doctor. He further submits that prosecutrix in para 42 of her cross- examination admitted that she never visited the police station and while giving statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she has not disclosed the fact regarding her pregnancy so also the process of D.N.C./ abortion. Friend of prosecutrix has also admitted that information regarding pregnancy was not given to her and no record of D.N.C. is available in the hospital. Placing reliance upon the prosecution witnesses P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.11, P.W.17, P.W.21 and P.W.22 learned counsel for the appellant submits that no evidence is available on record regarding involvement of the appellant in the offence in which he has been convicted. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused such liberty. This appeal will take time for its final Signature SAN Verified Not disposal. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments in Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR the cases of Ravi @ Ravichandran Vs. State 2007 CRI.L.J.2740, Pappu CHOUKSEY Date: 2022.04.23 10:12:59 IST

Pandit @ Rajendra Vs State of M.P. 2014 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 90, Gajanand Vs. State of M.P. Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 95, Babloo @ Rajendra Vs. State of M.P. 2009 (1) JLJ 374, Bablu @ Sunil Kumar and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2004 (2) ANJ (M.P.) 359, Puran Gosai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

2008 CGLJ (3) 434 and Babuji Vs. State of M.P. 2011 ILR (M.P.) 3173.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Placing reliance upon para 21, 23, 44, 51, 124 and 125 of the impugned judgment, he submits that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the Court below and prays for rejection of the application.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Vide para 124 and 125 of the judgment the Court below has held that it is not established on record that prior to identification parade, photograph of the appellant-accused was published and seen by the victim. On the contrary, it is proved that the prosecutrix identified the accused and there is sufficient evidence available on record to prove the involvement of the appellant-accused in the offence. From para 132 to 139, learned Court below has considered evidence available on record and found that the accused despite being Homeopathy Doctor and being not authorised/competent, terminated the pregnancy of the prosecutrix in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Hence, at this stage it cannot be said that the accused was innocent or he was not involved in illegal termination of pregnancy of the prosecutrix/victim.

In this backdrop, at this stage no case is made out for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter I.A.No.4536/2022 is rejected.

      (SUJOY PAUL)                                    (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
         JUDGE                                               JUDGE

kkc