Dr. (Mrs.) Ravinder Kaur and Others vs State of Haryana

K.C. Puri, J.—This common judgment will dispose of all the above-mentioned six Criminal Appeals as the same have arisen out of same judgment of trial Court. Facts have, however, been extracted from Criminal Appeal No. 708-SB of 2006.

All the six appellants faced trial in the Court of Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Special Judge, Ambala for offences punishable under Sections 201, 204, 217, 218, 466, 471, 474, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short the Act). Vide impugned judgment dated 7.4.2006, all the accused were convicted u/s 120-B IPC. All the accused except Amar Nath were held guilty and convicted under Sections 218, 466 and 474 IPC. Dr. Ravinder Kaur, Pharmacist Balwinder Kaur, Staff Nurses Sukhwinder Kaur, Surinder Kaur and Jasbir Kaur accused were also held guilty u/s 13(1)(d), punishable u/s 13(2) of the Act. Vide separate order dated 8.4.2006,all the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for 15 days. Ravinder Kaur, Jasbir Kaur, Balwinder Kaur, Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for 15 days u/s 218 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for 15 days u/s 466 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for 15 days u/s 474 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for 15 days.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The facts, in short, as unfolded from the complaint, Exhibit PF, sent by Sub Inspector Ranbir Singh of SVB, Kurukshetra to the Station House Officer, Police Station, SVB, Ambala, are as under:

On 29.8.1996, Sant Ram, accused Amar Nath, Jeetu residents of village Kulbanpur had caused injuries to Gurdev Singh, Shamsher Singh, Smt. Gurmeet Kaur etc. with Lathies, Kassies etc. This incident was witnessed by several villagers.

However, accused Dr. Ravinder Kaur took bribe from accused Amar Nath etc. and issued false medical certificate to them showing falsely that Amar Nath was admitted in Community Health Centre, Chaursamastpur at the time of alleged incident. From the statement of Senior Medical Officer Dr. Karan Singh Rana, PW-11 as also from enquiry, it was found that accused Dr. Ravinder Kaur, Staff Nurse and accused Jasbir Kaur had wrongly shown accused Amar Nath as having been admitted in the hospital on 29.8.1996 at around 2.00 P.M. and for doing so, the accused, in connivance with each other made cuttings on the admission register and even tore the pages of admission register. Not only this, accused Dr.Ravinder Kaur, Staff Nurse Jasbir Kaur, Staff Nurse Surinder Kaur and Staff Nurse Balwinder Kaur in connivance with one another made entries of the patients whose names were there on the torn pages, on the pages of new additional register by doing over writing and, thus, they had done so to falsely favour accused Amar Nath. Accused Jasbir Kaur also made false entry on the bed head ticket that accused Amar Nath was not on his bed from 5.00 P.M to 8.00 P.M.

It is further alleged by the prosecution that Deputy Sarpanch Ranjit Singh and Lamberdar Tarsem Singh of village Kurbanpur levelled allegations of corruption against Dr. Ravinder Kaur. An enquiry was conducted by Dr. M.K. Majithia, who gave his enquiry report, Exhibit PN, which was sent to the Government and then letter Exhibit PD was received from the Vigilance Department for proceeding against the accused departmentally and also to lodge First Information Report for the criminal acts done by them. On the basis of this complaint, Exhibit PF sent by Sub Inspector Ranbir Singh, formal First Information Report, Exhibit PF/1 was lodged by ASI Rajinder Kumar, PW-7 on 18.12.1997.

Investigation in the case was conducted and after completion of the same, the accused were challaned.

Charge-sheet was accordingly framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate its allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Mohan Lal, PW-2 Head Constable Siri Kishan, PW-3 Ved Kumari, Clerk, PW-4 Ranjit Kaur, Staff Nurse, PW-5 Karan Singh Dalal, PW-6 Kuldeep Kumar, PW-7 ASI Rajinder Kumar, PW-8 Head Constable Krishan Kumar, PW-9 Khem Chand Bhardwaj, PW-10 A.K.Tyagi, PW-11 Dr. K. S. Rana, PW-12 DSP Pala Ram, PW-13 Dr.M.K.Majithia, PW-14 DSP Mohinder Singh Malik, PW-15 SP Rajinder Singh and PW-16 Ranjit Singh.

When confronted with the incriminating evidence, the accused, in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, pleaded innocence by pleading that this case was out come of enmity between Dr. K.S.Rana and Dr. Ravinder Kaur and that neither any cutting nor any interpolation nor any false entry was made in the record. All of them stated that they had been falsely involved in the case.

Balwinder Kaur accused stated that she was on leave but she was called by Dr. K.S.Rana from her home for preparing urgent statement/report and that she was not on duty at the seat of Pharmacist on that day. She further stated that she had no concern with the indoor register.

In their defence, the accused examined DW-1 Prem Parkash Sharma, DW-2 Vikash Sharma and DW-3 Ajay Rao, Record Keeper.

After the conclusion of trial, the accused/appellants were convicted and sentenced, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Mr. Bipan Ghai, learned Counsel for Dr. Ravinder Kaur has submitted that the role of the doctor in the admission of a patient is simply to prepare the OPD slip and admit the patient. The doctor is not required to make entries in the admission register, OPD register or any where else. It is the duty of the Clerical Staff to make such entries. In case such entries are proved to be wrong, the doctor cannot be held liable for the same. Mr. Ghai has further contended that star witness of the prosecution, in the present case, is PW-11 Dr. K.S.Rana. The said witness is inimical towards appellant Dr. Ravinder Kaur. She has made various complaints against the said PW. In the cross-examination, in the first instance, PW-11 Dr. K.S.Rana has not admitted the fact of making complaints by Dr. Ravinder Kaur but in the later part of his cross-examination, he has admitted the factum of appellant Dr. Ravinder Kaur having made complaints against him. So, in these circumstances, the testimony of PW-11 Dr. K.S.Rana becomes doubtful. PW-11 has exaggerated the matter and has stated that Dr.Ravinder Kaur was giving dictation to Staff Nurses Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur for manipulating the record of admission of Amar Nath.

It is further submitted that in the bed head ticket itself, it is mentioned that Amar Nath has left the hospital at 5-00 PM. The occurrence had taken place at 5.30 PM. So, there was ample opportunity for Amar Nath to commit the offence. The plea of alibi has not been taken by Amar Nath and he has been ultimately acquitted for the offence for which he has been charged. PW-11 Rana has wrongly stated that pages have been removed from the register in order to enter new pages.

It is further contended that PW-11 Dr. K.S.Rana was the custodian of the record. It was only he could explain how there were over-writings and cuttings in the record. Possibility cannot be ruled out that in order to involve Dr.Ravinder Kaur, Dr. K.S.Rana has himself made alterations in the record, just to take the revenge of complaints against him made by Dr. Ravinder Kaur.

The counsel for all the appellants submitted that to attract the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act, the prosecution is required to prove demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification. So, in these circumstances, the appellants cannot be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. There cannot be any presumption for illegal gratification even if tampering of record is proved.

The counsel for Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur, appellants have contended that the names of Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur do not figure in the FIR. The investigation, in this case, was conducted by Dr. M.K. Majithia. He has also not found Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur guilty for any offence. Even their names have not been mentioned in the said report by Dr. M.K. Majithia. However, during investigation, their names have cropped up in the testimony of Dr.K.S.Rana who has wrongly stated that on 6.9.1996, he found Dr.Ravinder Kaur giving dictation to Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur. The statement of Dr. K.S.Rana cannot be accepted as he has simply made a wrong statement. Even if the testimony of Dr. K.S.Rana is taken as correct, in that case also, no criminal act is made out. In case, the Staff Nurses write something on the dictation of a doctor, then it does not attract criminal offence. It was not in the knowledge of Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur that the said writings would be used by Dr. Ravinder Kaur in forging the record.

The counsel for appellant Balwinder Kaur has contended that Balwinder Kaur has no concern with the offence in question. The trial Court has convicted her only on the ground of report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Exhibit PE. The said report has not been put to her in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. So, no benefit can be taken by the prosecution in respect of said report.

It has been further submitted that Balwinder Kaur was on leave on 29.8.1996. the alleged date of occurrence. So, she cannot be held liable.

Learned Counsel for Jasbir Kaur has submitted that although Jasbir Kaur refused to give her specimen signatures before the trial Court but even assuming that she has mentioned in the bed head ticket that Amar Nath left the hospital at 5-00 PM, in that case also, she cannot be convicted for the offence for which she has been charged.

The learned Counsel for the appellants have relied upon the following authorities:

P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar 1996 (3) Recent CR 261.

Saran Singh Jaggi v. State of Punjab 1995 (3) Recent CR 624.

Om Parkash Gupta v. State of Bihar 2000 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 570.

Harihar Singh v. State of Bihar 1998 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 476.

Gian Mahtani and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, .

Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 464.

T.K. Sriramappa v. State of Karnataka 2006 (3) R.C.R (Criminal) 91.

Subash Parbt Sonvane v. State of Gujarat 2002 (3) RCR (Criminal) 188.

Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 567.

10.Ram Dhari v. State of Haryana 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 838.

In reply to the above noted submissions, the State counsel has supported the judgment of the trial Court. It is contended that pages 121,122 and 123 of the register, Exhibit P-1, were torn out in order to insert entry regarding admission of Amar Nath in the hospital. It was only due to connivance of the appellants that the record has been manipulated. It is contended that in Exhibit P-1, the last entry at page 120 at serial No. 53 dated 28.9.1996 and page No. 125, entry No. 54 of 28.8.1996 have been mentioned. However, pages 121 to 123 have been inserted in which entry No. 54 dated 28.8.1996 has been mentioned. There are entries upto serial Nos. 66 on page No. 122 dated 31.8.1996. On page Nos. 121, 122 and 123, entries mentioned are 295/2 of 296/3 onwards which continue upto 302. The accused could not explain how entry No. 294 appeared on page No. 123 after entry No. 66on page No. 122. Dr. K.S.Rana has found Dr. Ravinder Kaur dictating these entries which were written by Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur, appellants. So, all the appellants have made entries in order to show the admission of Amar Nath in the hospital. Jasbir Kaur has mentioned in the bed head ticket that Amar Nath had left the hospital at 5-00 P.M. All the appellants have manipulated the record in order to help Amar Nath by showing that he had been admitted.

So far as acquittal of Amar Nath is concerned, the same was the result of compromise with the complainant. From the perusal of the judgment, it is revealed that earlier the witnesses in the case supported the case of the prosecution in their examination in chief but in the cross-examination, it so seems that due to compromise, they have resiled from their previous statements and, on that count, Amar Nath has been acquitted. The acquittal of Amar Nath has nothing to do with the accused. The appellants have committed serious offence by manipulating the record. The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the record has been manipulated for extraneous consideration. So, the demand and acceptance is not required to be strictly proved. The authorities relied upon by the counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the case of the appellants. The learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with the case of each of the appellants. It is contended that no case is made out for acquittal of the accused.

24 I have considered the submissions made by both sides and have gone through the record of the case.

Now, the question arises whether any ground for interference in the appeal is made out or not. The answer to that question is in the negative.

The submission made by Mr. Bipan Ghai that Dr. Ravinder Kaur has simply prepared OPD Slip and is not guilty of any other act is concerned, the said submission is without any substance. There is a categoric finding of the learned trial Court that Dr. Ravinder Kaur, in connivance with other accused has forged the record of the Community Health Centre to save Amar Nath from legal punishment. The testimony of Dr. K.S. Rana clinches the issue. He has categorically stated that when he went to Community Health Centre he found that Dr. Ravinder Kaur was giving dictation to Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur accused to make entries in the register, Exhibit P-1.He further stated that page Nos. 121 to 124 were missing and Dr. Ravinder kaur was giving dictation to re-write page Nos. 121 to 124 so as to insert the name of Amar Nath as having been admitted in the Community Health Centre. So, without the active connivance of Dr. Ravinder Kaur, there cannot be change in the record of the Community Health Centre. There is a cutting against entry No. 7360 whereby Amar Nath has been shown to have been admitted. The bed head ticket prepared shows his admission. After coming to know that a complaint had been made regarding bed head ticket, they mentioned that Amar Nath had left the Centre at 5-00 PM on the day of occurrence. Dr. K.S. Rana, being a Gazetted Officer, would be the last person to depose against his co-doctor and other accused. The stand taken by the accused that page Nos. 121 to 124 were torn by the child of Jasbir Kaur accused is simply to avoid legal proceedings.

So far as submission that Dr. K.S.Rana was the custodian of the record and he would have manipulated the record to take revenge from Dr. Ravinder Kaur is concerned, the said contention has been repelled by the trial Court. Otherwise also, the said argument does not appeal to reason. From the trend of cross-examination of Dr. K.S.Rana and other PWs, it is revealed that in fact they have tried to help the accused. Since the record has been manipulated and that fact is apparent on the face of it, so the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. The learned trial Court has observed that the complaint against Dr. Rana was made afterwards and, on that count,much importance cannot be given to it. Even if the complaint had been made by Dr. Ravinder Kaur prior to the occurrence, in that case also, it cannot be believed that Dr. K.S.Rana would go to the extent of falsely implicating Dr. Ravinder Kaur. Otherwise, there is no allegation against Dr. Rana for falsely implicating Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur. Mere fact that the names of Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur do not find mention in the FIR and the inquiry report by Dr. M.K.Majithia, no doubt is created in the prosecution version. Both these accused have facilitated in tampering with the record. The recording of statement is only meant to set the law in motion. The appellants cannot have any benefit of the authority in case P.S. Rajya (supra), in view of statement of Dr. Rana. No similar facts were in the said authority. Dr. Rana on 4.9.1996, found accused Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur writing the dictation from Dr. Ravinder Kaur.

So far as contention of counsel for the appellants that Balwinder Kaur accused has no concern with the offence, the said submission is without any substance. The report of the expert clearly shows that Balwinder Kaur made entry to forge the record. Mere fact that Exhibit PE has not been put to the accused does not give any benefit to Balwinder Kaur, more so, when she has been questioned in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C that the record had been tampered with. Mere fact that Balwinder Kaur was on leave does not absolve her from her liability,more so,when she has stated that she came to the Community Health Centre.

The contention of the counsel for the appellants that Jasbir Kaur,as per report,has simply made entries of Amar Nath leaving the Centre does not make her criminally liable is concerned, the said submission is without any substance. She was a conspirator in forging the record to show Amar Nath as having been admitted in the Centre. Mere fact that Amar Nath has been later acquitted does not affect the merits of the case.

From the perusal of the judgment now placed on the file, it is revealed that Amar Nath has been acquitted simply as the witnesses have resiled from their previous statements. The learned trial Court has rightly held that it is very unfortunate that the doctor, Nurses and the other staff have joined together to tamper with the record by showing Amar Nath as admitted in the Centre so as to enable him to take the plea of alibi.

The submission made by the counsel for the appellants that there is no demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and, on that count, the ingredients of offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act are not made out is concerned, the same is without any substance. The tampering of record could not be without extraneous consideration. So, in these circumstances, the accused have been rightly convicted under Sections 120B IPC and 7 and 13(2) of the Act also.

Authority in case Saran Singh Jaggi (supra) is distinguishable as in that case, there was shortage of wheat for which departmental proceedings were initiated and the accused was exonerated. Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur have never been exonerated in the departmental enquiry.

Authority in case Om Parkash Gupta (supra), is distinguishable as the accused was exonerated on the same ground.

Authority in case Harihar Singh (supra) is also distinguishable for the same reasons.

Authority in case Gian Mahtani (supra) is remotely connected to the facts of the case. In the said case, it has been held that the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of suspicion alone. There is no dispute with this proposition of law. However, in the present case, the accused have not been convicted on the basis of suspicion.

In authority in case Dalip Singh (supra), it has been held that forgery is not to be presumed. It has to be proved. In the present case, forgery is apparent on the record. Page Nos. 121 to 123 of register, Exhibit P-1, have been torn away and new pages No. 121 to 124 have been inserted. That fact is apparent on the face of it. On page No. 120, entries of monthly numbers 46 to 53 exist. On page No. 125, the entries of monthly numbers 54 to 62 have been entered. The inserted page No. 121 again mention monthly numbers from 54 to 64. It is not out of place to mention here that entries on inserted page No. 121 are of the same month i.e of August,1996 and entries on page No. 125 are also of the month of August,1996. On page No. 122, monthly numbers of 65 and 66 are there. On page 123, monthly number 129 has been shown in the month of September,1996. Page No. 124 is lying blank. So, how the entries of August,1996 could appear on page No. 125 when the entries of 1996 have been closed on page No. 122. So, the record has been tampered with. Dr. K.S.Rana has himself observed tampering of the record by Dr. Ravinder Kaur, Sukhwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur.

Authority in case T.K.Sriramappa (supra) is also distinguishable as, in the present case, it is proved beyond shadow of doubt that the accused committed forgery with the intention that the forged documents shall be used for the purpose of cheating.

Authority in case Subash Parbt Sonvane (supra) is distinguishable as that case was of a raid. The facts, in the present case, are different.

Authorities in cases Lallu Manjhi and Anr. and Ram Dhari (supra) are also distinguishable as in the present case, all the accused in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C have been duly apprised of the fact regarding manipulation in the record.

Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence, it is to be noticed that the accused are facing trial since the year1996. The ends of justice would be met in case their sentences awarded under Sections 120-B, 218, 466, 474 IPC and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are reduced to one year instead of two years. However, sentence of fine under all the above-mentioned Sections stand confirmed.

With the above-said modification in the sentence, the appeals stands dismissed.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.