Sanjay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8236 MP

                                                                          1

                                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                                 CRR No. 2190 of 2022

                                                         (SANJAY SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                      Dated : 22-06-2022
                                            Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Diwakar, counsel for
                                      the applicant.
                                            Shri Purushottam Soni, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

Revision seems to be arguable, hence it is admitted for final hearing. Heard on I.A. No.11195/2022, which is an application for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against the applicant and released him on bail.

This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 16/06/2022 passed by IV Additional Session Judge, District Mandla (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.133/2022, whereby learned ASJ affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 27/12/2021 passed by learned JMFC, Mandla in R.C.T. No.600870/2011 whereby learned JMFC found applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and

directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- to each of the injured under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. and in default of depositing that amount he shall undergo further R.I. for 30 days.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is alleged that on 10th September 2010 and 16th September 2010 an Eye camp was organized at Yogiraj Hospital and Research Center, Mandla. In that camp operations of Signature Not Verified SAN cataract of many people were conducted by co-accused Dr Anil Parmar with the help of co-accused Kamal Jhariya, Bhupendra Thakur and Shyam Janghela. Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2022.06.23 10:13:27 IST

Due to their negligence, 38 people lost their eyesight. It is alleged that at that time applicant was the Manager of Yogiraj Hospital and Research Centre, Mandla and he destroyed the evidence of that offence. While there is no evidence on record to show that at the time of the incident applicant was the Manager of the Hospital. There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant destroyed any evidence of the offence. He further submitted that prosecution produced as many as 34 witnesses to prove his case but out of these witnesses Moolchand (PW/1), Chamra (PW/2), Ninda Bai Maravi (PW/3), Raso Bai (PW/4), Dudiya Bai (PW/5), Balariya Bai (PW/6), Sappe Bai (PW/7), Ramta Bai (PW/8), Kamal Singh (PW/9), Rama Bai (PW/10), Madan

Singh (PW/11), Sukwaro bai (PW/12), Ratan Lal (PW/13), Mohan Lal (PW/14), Pancho Bai (PW/15), Rewti Bai (PW/16), Fundiya Bai (PW/17), Bhagan Bai (PW/18), Ajab Singh (PW/19), Lalla Das Mongre (PW/20), Sukrani (PW/21), Dadulal (PW/22), Shankarlal (PW/23), Mulayam Das (PW/24), Trilok Singh (PW/25), Jhanglu (PW/26), Bhajan Das (PW/29), Ashok Kumar (PW/30), Dhyan Das (PW/31), Smt. Kunjo Bai Rajak (PW/32) & Dashrath Sonwani (PW/33) did not depose anything against the applicant. From their statements, it just appears that cataract operations of these witnesses were conducted at Yogiraj Hospital and Research Center, Mandla and sometime later due to infection they lost sight. In their statements, it is not mentioned that the applicant was the Manager of the said hospital or he conducted operations or destroyed any evidence. Smt. Meena Samram (PW/27), the then Dy. Collector Mandla also did not depose anything against the applicant. On the contrary, she admitted in her cross-examination that the instruments used during the Signature Not Verified SAN

operations were of standard company. Though Dr Varun Aharwal (PW/34) in Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2022.06.23 10:13:27 IST

his statement deposed that all the material used during the operations were

destroyed by the hospital management and they did not produce the stock register at the time of the enquiry. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the instruments used during the operation were of standard company. He also admitted in para 5 of his cross-examination that the material used in the operation is destroyed immediately after the operation. So merely on the basis that the hospital management destroyed the material used in the operations immediately after the operations, it cannot be said that they destroyed the evidence of the crime. Even from the statements of PW-1 to PW-26 and PW-28 to PW-33, it is clear that those people were cured after the operation and went home after being discharged from the hospital. After sometime they got an infection. So it is clear that the infection occurred some time after their discharge from the hospital, therefore only on the basis that immediately after the operation the hospital management destroyed the material used in the operation, it cannot be said that the hospital management willfully destroyed the evidence of an offence. Learned trial Court as well as appellate Court without appreciating these facts properly wrongly found the applicant guilty for the aforesaid offence. The applicant is in judicial custody since 16.06.2022 and hearing of this revision will take time, so sentence of applicant be suspended and he be released on bail. In this regard, he also placed reliance on the Apex Court judgments passed in the case of Padmini Mahendrabhai Gadda Vs.

State of Gujarat reported in (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 157, Sou. Vijaya @ Baby v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2003) 8 SCC 296 & Ram Saran Mahto & Another Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1999) 9 SCC 486.

Signature Not Verified SAN Learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that from the

Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL prosecution evidence the guilt of appellant is clearly proved so learned trial Date: 2022.06.23 10:13:27 IST

court as well as appellate Court did not commit any mistake in finding the applicant guilty for the aforesaid offence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant, the short sentence awarded by the trial Court and the fact that applicant is in custody since 16.06.2022 and according to listing policy hearing of this revision will take time, the application is allowed. It is, therefore, directed that execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision and he be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/9/2022 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this revision.

List the case for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE

(ra)

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2022.06.23 10:13:27 IST