State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ratan Kumar Mandal

This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the Petitioner/State against the judgment 15.06.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 446/2000 by which respondent herein has been acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code and Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the accused/respondent is registered practitioner of State Council of Ayurvedik Medicine, Bihar. On 01.07.2000, Amit Saxena, Thana In­charge, Dongargarh, raided on the clinic of respondent/accused and seized the allopathic medicine from the possession of accused/respondent while he has no valid certificate for treatment in allopathy system. From his dispensary allopathy madicine, syringe, surgical apparatus were seized by seizure memo (Ex. P/1) furthermore, from his residence also huge quantity of allopathic and ayurvedic medicines were seized vide Ex. P/9 and during investigation spot map (Ex. P/2O) was prepared. Memorandum of accused/respondent was also recorded vide Ex. P/3. Memo was sent to the District Medical Officer and District Medical Officer gave them information vide Ex. P/11. After completion of investigation charge­sheet was filed and charges were framed against the respondent/accused under the Sections as aforementioned.

In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and brought into record 16 documents.

After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, learned trial Court by impugned judgment acquitted the respondent/accused from the aforementioned charges. Hence, this appeal filed by the State.

Mr.  Ishwar  Jaiswal,  Panel  Lawyer  would  submit  that learned Special Judge has absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondent herein from the aforesaid charges by recording a finding which is perverse to the record and deserves to be set­aside by admitting the acquittal appeal. It is further submitted that the respondent/accused is not qualified to give the allopathic treatment despite that he is giving the treatment, as a consequence of which one patient namely Smt. Shivpyari has suffered complete loss of her eyesight but the learned trial Court failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective. The learned trial Court did not give weightage to the medical certificates, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent which is liable to be set­aside.

Mr. Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that as there is no documentary evidence available on record which can prove the guilt of respondent/accused, as such, learned trail Court has rightly acquitted the respondent, therefore, this acquittal appeal is liable to be dismissed. In support of his argument he placed reliance in the matter of Murlidhar alias Gidda & Another Vs. State of Karnataka passed in (2014) 5 SCC 730.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

A careful perusal of the record shows that Suresh Kumar (PW­1) has stated in its statement that the said boxes of allopathic medicines was of the agent who had dropped the boxes stating that he would take them back after sometime. Paras 4 & 5 of the statement are as under:­

“जिस दिन पुलिस वाले दवाखाना में जॉच के लिए आया उस दिन दवाखाना में काम पर आया था, आरोपी अपने दवाखाना में प्रतिदिन 12 बजे तब बैठते थे, उसके बाद दवाखाना से घर चला जाता है और बीच में 3 बजे वापस दवाखाना आ जाता था। जिस दिन पुलिस वाला दवाखाना में आया उस दिन 10 बजे दिन को आरोपी सुदेश गांधी के यहां सगाई में गया था। आरोपी के जाने के बाद दवा बेचने वाला एजेन्ट दवा बेचने दवाखाना में आया था। वह दवा एजेंट तीन बाक्स में दवा लेकर आया था तथा उक्त बाक्सों को दवाखाना में छोडकर यह कहकर चला गया था कि बाद में आकर ले जाउगा। पुलिस वालो ने आकर उन्ही बक्सों को खोलकर दवाई देखी थी। उस दिन वा दवा एजेन्ट दवा लेने दुबारा दवाखाना में नहीं आया था। आरोपी मण्डल ने पुलिस को सूचित किया था कि दवा के वे बक्से आरोपी के नहीं हैं।”

Gulsan Hirwani (PW­2) has also stated in para 3 of his statement that:­

“यह कहना सही है कि जप्ती के समय आरोपी के कम्पाउन्डर ने यह बताया था कि दवाइयों का बस्सा सेल्समैन ही रख कर गया है। यह कहना सही है कि आरोपी डॉ0 मण्डल डोंगरगांव में आयुर्वेदिक चिकित्सक के रूप में इलाज करते हैं।”

Furthermore, Umeram (PW­3) has also supported the aforesaid statement of Gulsan Hirwani (PW­2). Though Om Prakash Gupta (PW­4) has stated about the ill­treatment of wife of one Dinesh Kumar Gupta but in his cross­examination, in para 5, he failed to tell the name of said medicine which caused reaction to her body. Para 2 & 5 are relevant here which are as under:­

दिनेश कुमार गुप्ता आपनी पत्नी का इलाज डॉ0 रतनकुमार मण्डल से ही कराते थे। मैं दिनेश कुमार गुप्ता एवं उनकी पत्नी के साथ डॉ0 के पास जब पहले दिन दवाई दिये थे, उसके दूसरे दिन एवं तीसरे दिन भी गया था, दूसरे दिन गला में दर्द होने की शिकायत पर डॉ0 मण्डल ने और दवाई दिया था। तीसने दिन जब वापस लाये थे तो दिनेश कुमार गुप्ता की पत्नी की पूरे शरीर में छाले पड गये थे और आंख बंद हो गयी थी। डॉ0 मण्डल ने कहा कि राजनांदगांव ले जाइये। मेरे कहने पर डोंगरगांव में सरकारी अस्पताल में दिखाई तो डॉ0 साहब ने कहा कि रियेक्शन बढ चुका है, इसलिए राजनांदगांव ले जाइये। दिनेश कुमार की पत्नी को आज भी बिल्कुल दिखाई नहीं देता है। शिवप्यारी को कुल्ला करने के लिए दवाई दी गई थी। कुल्ला करने के लिए सीसी में दवाई दी गई थी और दिन  में तीन बार कुल्ला करने को कहा गया था। मेरे सामनं मेरे घर में एक बार कुल्ला किया गया था। शिवप्यारी बाई को जो दवाई दी गई थी उनका  नाम मुझे नहीं मालूम।”

Furthermore, Dinesh Gupta (PW­6) & Shivpyari Bai (PW­7) also stated about the loss of full eyesight of Shivpyari Bai due to the ill­treatment of accused/respondent herein but the prosecution neither produced any Medical Officer nor filed any medical certificate which can demonstrate that due to the ill­treatment of respondent/accused eyesight of Shivpyari Bai was lost or which medicine was given to her during her treatment. Learned trial Court also found that prosecution did not prove its case against the respondent and the accused/respondent has genuine document of registration. Based on the said finding, trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent from the aforesaid charges and this Court finds no illegality in the finding of trial Court.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of  Muralidhar (supra) held in paras 11 ­12 as under:­

As  early  as  in  1952,  this  Court  in Surajpal Singh [Surajpal Singh V. State, AIR 1952 SC 52: 1952 Cri LJ 331] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed: (AIR p.54, para 7)

“7... the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trail court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.”

Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:­

(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court;

(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal;

(iii) Thought, the powers of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified; and

(iv) Merely because the appellate court on re­ appreciation and re­evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.

The findings recorded by learned Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent from the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is based on material available on record. This Court finds no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondent particularly when there is a settled legal position that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal, even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record.

Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is hereby dismissed.