Delhi District Court
State vs . Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. on 3 February, 2020
IN THE COURT BY SH. VISHAL SINGH, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT, THC, DELHI.
SC No. 56494/2016
State Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr.
FIR No. 406/2009
U/s. 170/419/420/326/120B/34 IPC & Section 27 DMC Act.
PS: Hari Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 56494/2016
2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 20.09.2013
3. Name of the complainant : Smt. Madhumita Sadhukhan
4. Date of Commission of Offence : From 24.07.2009 onwards.
5. Name and Parentage of Accused : 1. Supriyo Mukherjee
S/o. Sh. Sunil Kumar Mukherjee
R/o. 96/B, Haris Charterjee Street
Bhawanipur, Kolkata.
2. Smt. Ishani Banerjee
W/o. Sh. Pradhyot Banerjee
R/o. J40, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 419/420/170/326/120B/34 IPC &
Section 27 DMC Act, 1997.
7. Offence Charged : Accused Supriyo Mukherjee -
U/s. 170/419/420/308/120B IPC.
Accused Ishani Banerjee -
U/s. 170/419/420/120B/34 IPC.
8. Plea of Guilt : Not guilty.
FIR No. 406/2009
PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 1/21
9. Final Order : Accused Ishani Banerjee
acquitted.
: Accused Supriyo Mukherjee
acquitted for the offence U/s.
308 IPC.
: However, accused Supriyo
Mukherjee convicted for the
offence U/s. 170/419/420/323
IPC.
10. Date on which Order Reserved : 07.01.2020.
11. Date on which Order Announced : 03.02.2020.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case against the accused persons is that complainant Smt. Madhumita's son Indranil Sadhukhan was a kidney patient and was undergoing treatment at CMC Vellore. Accused Ishani Banerjee, who is a relative of the complainant, introduced her to accused Supriyo Mukherjee on 31/07/2009 and represented that he was a nephrology specialist who could give better treatment to her son. Accused Supriyo Mukherjee started treatment of Indranil and obtained money from the complainant on several occasions. Accused Supriyo Mukherjee treated Indranil for his kidney ailment and prescribed medicines to him. The medical condition of Indranil deteriorated under treatment of accused Supriyo Mukherjee to such an extent that he had to be shifted from Dhanbad to Ganga Ram Hospital at Delhi in critical condition. The complainant filed criminal complaint against accused Supriyo Mukherjee for cheating Rs.2,00,000/, impersonating as a doctor, forgery on prescription slips, criminal intimidation FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 2/21 and for causing damage to kidneys of Indranil by prescribing wrong medicines. During investigation, police discovered that accused Supriyo Mukherjee had no medical qualification to practice as a doctor, as printed on his medicine prescription slips.
2. The FIR dated 16/12/2009 was registered on the statement of complainant Smt. Madhumita Sadhukhan. Chargesheet U/s. 173 CrPC was filed U/s. 419/420/170/326/120B/34 IPC & Section 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997, against the accused persons.
3. Upon completion of necessary formalities, the chargesheet was committed for trial to this Court. Accused Supriyo Mukherjee was charged for the offence U/s. 170/419/420/308/120B/34 IPC, whereas, accused Ishani Bhardwaj was charged for the offence U/s. 170/419/420/120B/34 IPC.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined total 18 witnesses. PW1 HC Balmiki Mishra deposed that on 05.02.2010, he joined investigation with IO SI K.P. Jha and upon direction of IO, he alongwith Ct. Rajesh reached Vijay Enclave, Palam, where they showed photographs of accused Supriyo Mukherjee to public persons as well as to secret informer. He deposed that on the basis of secret information they apprehended accused Supriyo Mukherjee from his residence vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/A and personally searched him vide memo Ex. PW1/B. They took the accused to PS and handed him over to IO SI K.P. Jha. He identified accused Supriyo Mukherjee in the Court.
5. PW2 M.K. Dhar, HOD Medical Record Department, Ganga Ram Hospital, identified handwriting and signature of Dr. A.K. Bhalla on letter dated 10.06.2010, Ex. PW2/A pertaining to patient Indranil Sadhukhan, who was FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 3/21 undergoing treatment for chronic kidney disease. He also produced discharge summary Ex. PW2/B and identified the signature of Dr. A.K. Bhalla on it, at point A. As per medical record, patient Indranil was on dialysis, who was admitted on 12.10.2009 and was discharged on 19.10.2009.
6. PW3 SI Ajay Kumar deposed that on 19.04.2011 the present case was marked to him and upon direction of IO Inspector Harpal Singh he reached Dhanbad, Jharkhand, where he met Dr. Suman Kumar Pathak, who referred patient Indranil Sadhukhan to a doctor namely Supriyo Mukherjee in Delhi. He recorded statement of Dr. Suman Kumar Pathak. He deposed that upon service of notice U/s. 91 CrPC and application Ex. PW3/A, the Record Keeper of Asharfee Hospital, provided him photocopies of admission ticket Mark X1 and discharge Mark X2 of patient Indernil Sadhukhan. He deposed that he also served notice U/s. 91 CrPC to Jalan Hospital, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, through application Ex. PW3/B, however, since the record keeper was on leave, the hospital authority asked him to send the record through post.
7. PW4 Dr. Kumar Narendra Mohan, Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, deposed that in the month of January, 2010, patient Indernil Sadhukhan was brought to DDU Hospital with alleged history of kidney problem. He medically examined the patient and prepared MLC Ex. PW4/A.
8. (a) PW5/complainant Smt. Madhumita Sadhukhan, deposed that her son Indernil Sadhukhan was a kidney patient. She deposed that accused Ishani Banerjee approached her in the month of July, 2009, and advised her to get her son treated from accused Supriyo Mukherjee, who was stated to be a doctor working in AIIMS hospital. She deposed that in the month of July, 2009, she FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 4/21 alongwith her son came to Delhi and stayed with her sister in Gurgaon. She deposed that upon being called by accused Ishani, she alongwith her son visited the residence of accused Ishani Banerjee at Kalkaji where she introduced them to accused Supriyo Mukherjee stating that he was an expert in treating kidney problems. She deposed that accused Supriyo Mukherjee called her at his home and after 23 days she alongwith her son visited the house of accused Supriyo Mukherjee at Prem Nagar, where he checked her son and assured her to cure the kidney problem of her son. He gave certain medicines to her son and also administered three injections on the same day. She deposed that accused Supriyo Mukherjee gave his visiting card to her and also prescribed the medicines on his letterhead, as per which he was a doctor working in AIIMS Hospital.
8. (b) PW5 deposed that accused Supriyo Mukherjee used to prescribe medicines for her son every month and took huge amount for the medicines. She deposed that in the month of November, 2009, her son's condition deteriorated due to which he was bed ridden and could not move. She deposed that when her son's condition became serious, she called accused Supriyo Mukherjee, however, instead of advising medicines or supporting her, the accused started misbehaving with her and asked her not to call him. She deposed that she also called accused Ishani Banerjee but accused Ishani also started misbehaving with her and asked her not to disturb accused Supriyo Mukherjee.
8. (c) She deposed that she told to her relatives and friends about her son as well as behaviour of accused Supriyo Mukherjee and they advised her to check the list of doctors working at AIIMS. She deposed that upon inquiry through FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 5/21 phone call, she came to know that accused Supriyo Mukherjee had never worked in AIIMS hospital. She deposed that when she came to know that accused Supriyo Mukherjee had never worked in AIIMS hospital, she became nervous about the bad condition of her son. She deposed that she got her son admitted in Jalan Hospital at Dhanbad, however, upon advice of the doctors of Jalan Hospital, she got her son admitted in Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, under the supervision of Dr. Bhalla in the month of September, 2019. Dr. Bhalla told her about the serious condition of her son and that her son was not in a position to be put on dialysis. The doctor also asked her to first normalize her son and, then, to start dialysis.
8. (d) She deposed that in the month of December, 2009, Dr. Bhalla advised her for kidney transplant of her son and on 16/01/2020 it got transplanted under the supervision of Dr. Bhalla.
8. (e) PW5 deposed that she paid around Rs.2,00,000/ to accused Supriyo Mukherjee. She deposed that after admitting her son in Ganga Ram Hospital in September, 2009, she made inquiries regarding accused Supriyo Mukherjee and came to know that he was not a doctor but was a medical representative working in Wyeth Company. She deposed that she lodged a complaint Ex.PW5/A against both the accused persons at PS Hari Nagar and handed over the visiting card Ex. P1, medical prescription which was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/B, photographs Ex. P2 & P3 showing her son with accused and last medical prescription Mark A to police.
8. (f) She deposed that accused Supriyo Mukherjee never gave her any receipt for the payments she made to him for treatment. She deposed that she handed over all the documents related to treatment, to police. The documents of FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 6/21 Dhanbad hospital are Mark X1, X2 and Mark Y (colly.), whereas, the documents of Ganga Ram Hospital are Ex. PW2/B (colly.). In reply to a leading question put by Ld. Addl. PP regarding admission of her son at Ganga Ram Hospital, she stated that her son was admitted in the said hospital on 10/10/2009. She deposed that she consulted certain doctors at Dhanbad Hospital, and showed them prescription slips given by accused Supriyo Mukherjee, who told that the prescribed medicines were not meant for treatment of kidney.
9. PW6 Indranil, son of complainant, corroborated the version of PW5 regarding his treatment by accused Supriyo Mukherjee, who was introduced to him and his mother/PW5/complainant Smt. Madhumita Sadhukhan through accused Ishani Banerjee, for kidney problem. He stated that accused Supriyo Mukherjee asked him not to take medicines that were prescribed by doctors at Vallore and accused prescribed him injections that he needed to take thrice a day. After taking the medicine prescribed by accused Supriyo Mukherjee, his condition deteriorated because of which he was taken by his mother to Delhi at Ganga Ram Hospital in critical condition.
10.(a) PW7 Anil Budhiraja deposed that in the year 2007, he gave second floor of his house on rent to accused Supriyo Mukherjee, who introduced himself as a doctor in AIIMS hospital. He deposed that the accused did not place any signboard of his profession at his home, neither had he seen any patient visiting him. He deposed that in the year 20102011, after accused Supriyo was apprehended by police, he came to know that he was not a doctor. He deposed that the accused never operated any clinic at the rented premises. He produced photocopy of the format Mark A regarding information of tenant, which was in handwriting of accused Supriyo Mukherjee.
FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 7/2110.(b) PW7 was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for State. In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW7 denied the suggestion that accused Supriyo Mukherjee was running clinic at his home and the kidney patients used to come there for treatment. He was shown his statement, recorded U/s. 161 CrPC Mark B, from portion A to A1, however, he denied to having made any such statement to police.
11.PW8 Dr. Suman Kumar Pathak, MD (Medicine), deposed that on 13/09/2009 patient Indranil Sadhukhan, aged 21 years, was admitted in Dwarka Das Jalan Memorial Hospital, Bartand, Dhanbad, and was discharged on 14/09/2019. He deposed that, on his behalf, Dr. B.B. Upadhayaya, Sr. Resident Doctor, had prepared the discharge certificate Mark 8A of patient Indranil.
12.(a) PW9 Inspector Har Pal Singh, SHO PS Sarai Rohilla (GRP) Railway, deposed that on 18/04/2011 the present case was assigned to him for further investigation. He deposed that after verification of medical record of patient Indranil and upon recording of statement of doctors/staff of Jalan Hospital & Asarfi Hospital, Dhanbad, Bihar through SI Ajay Gupta, he went to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, where he met Dr. A.K. Bhalla, who had treated patient Indranil. He deposed that upon inquiry he found that after taking treatment from accused Supriyo Mukherjee, patient Indranil was under treatment of Dr. A.K. Bhalla. He recorded statement of Dr. A.K. Bhalla.
12.(b) PW9 deposed that he went to Anti Quackery Cell, Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Karkardooma, where complainant had already given complaint against the accused and upon inquiry he came to know that the concerned staff FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 8/21 of the hospital had already referred the complaint to Indian Medical Association (IMA), ITO, New Delhi. He went to the office of IMA, where he came to know that the said complaint was sent to Dr. Girish Tyagi, Head of Branch of IMA at Delhi. He deposed that he met Dr. Girish Tyagi at Maulana Azad Medial College, who informed him that on the basis of complaint of complainant, he had already filed complaint Mark B against accused Supriyo Mukherjee in the Court of Ld. MM, having jurisdiction over PS Hari Nagar.
12.(c) PW9 deposed that he went to the rented premises i.e. Prem Nagar, Chhoti Subzi Mandi, Janak Puri, Delhi, of accused Supriyo Mukhejee to verify regarding his tenancy at the aforesaid address and for giving treatment to patient Indranil by the accused. He verified the tenancy of accused Supriyo from his landlord Anil Budhiraja. He deposed that from landlord Anil Budhiraja he came to know that accused Supriyo used to introduce himself as doctor of AIIMS hospital to everyone and used to treat patient Indranil.
13.PW10 Dr. Girish Tyagi, Secretary cum Registrar, Delhi Medical Council, MAMC, New Delhi, deposed that in the year 2009 he received a complaint from CDMO, Directorate of Health Services, Delhi Government, alongwith complaint of complainant Ms. Madhumita. As per complaint, complainant's son Indranil was treated by accused Supriyo Mukherjee, who falsely represented himself as a doctor of AIIMS hospital. Upon receipt of complaint, copy of medical prescription slip, copy of visiting card of accused Supriyo, Delhi Medical Council served a show cause notice to accused to appear before the Council with relevant degrees and documents on the basis of which he was practicing as a doctor. Despite service of notice, accused Supriyo did not appear before Delhi Medical Council on 13/09/2010 because of which it was FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 9/21 decided by the Council to take legal action against him. On 18/01/2010, accused Supriyo filed a written reply as per which he was not a doctor by profession and he was not practicing. After due consideration, complaint Ex. PW10/A (colly.) was filed against accused Supriyo in the Court.
14.PW11 Nitin Sharma, Sales Officer, ICICI Bank, produced the certified copy Ex. PW11/A of statement of account no. 008701036693 for the period 04/04/2009 to 28/06/2010, belonging to accused Supriyo Mukherjee. The accompanying certificate U/s. 65B Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW11/B. The confirmation certificate issued by ICICI Bank that the above mentioned account belongs to accused Supriyo Mukherjee is Ex. PW11/C.
15.PW12 HC Rajesh Kumar deposed about searching for accused Supriyo Mukherjee in the area of Vijay Enclave, Palam, with the help of a photograph and about his arrest from his rented premises vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/A and personal search memo Ex. PW1/B.
16.PW13 Dr. A.K. Saxena, retired CMO, AntiQuackery Cell, Directorate of Health Services, Karkardooma, Delhi, deposed that on 11/12/2009 he received complaint Ex. PW13/A from Smt. Madhumita against accused Supriyo Mukherjee, as per which he was practicing as a doctor of AIIMS hospital. On 18/12/2009, he forwarded the complaint to Registrar, Delhi Medical Council, alongwith covering letter Ex. PW13/B
17.PW14 SI Umed Singh deposed that on 21/05/2010 further investigation of this case was assigned to him. During investigation, he collected relevant documents of patient Indranil from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. He collected FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 10/21 documents of bank account of accused Supriyo from ICICI Bank through application Ex. PW14/A. Thereafter, further investigation was transferred from him to another IO.
18.(a) PW15 Inspector P.K. Jha deposed that on 24/12/2009 investigation of this case was assigned to him upon registration of FIR. On 08/01/2010, complainant and her son Indranil came to PS and handed over visiting card of accused Supriyo, two prescription slips given by accused Supriyo, two documents of medical claim bearing signature of accused Supriyo vide Ex. PX and PY. Complainant also handed over photographs Ex. P2 and P3 of house of accused Supriyo. The documents and photographs were seized through memo Ex. PW5/B, whereas, visiting card of the accused was seized vide memo Ex. P1. He alongwith complainant and her son went to house of the accused which was found locked. He prepared site plan Ex. PW15/A. Thereupon, they went to DDU Hospital where MLC of patient Indranil was prepared. Since the complainant stated that she had deposited money in the bank account of accused Supriyo at ICICI Bank, he obtained the relevant documents from the bank through notices Ex. PW15/B and Ex. PW15/C. The bank statements are Mark A1.
18.(b) On 17/01/2010, accused Supriyo came to police station and PW15 obtained specimen handwriting and signature Ex. PW15/C1 to Ex. PW15/C15 of the accused. He obtained admitted signature and specimen signature of accused Supriyo from ICICI Bank, Janakpuri, through notice Ex. PW15/D and sent them alongwith question documents to FSL for forensic opinion. Through application Ex. PW15/E to Registrar, AIIMS, he verified if accused Supriyo Mukherjee worked in the hospital. He received the reply there was no doctor FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 11/21 by the name of Supriyo Mukherjee, who passed out as MD in Obst. & Gynae from AIIMS hospital.
18.(c) Accused Supriyo moved his anticipatory bail application but in the meantime he was arrested by HC Balmiki Mishra. He interrogated the accused and obtained his PC remand. In pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Supriyo Mukherjee, he arrested coaccused Ishani Banerjee through arrest memo Ex. PW15/G. He seized two City Bank Credit Card statements of accused Supriyo and his wife and seized them through memo Ex. PW15/I.
19.PW16 lady Ct. Suman is a formal witness, limited to arrest of accused Ishani Banerjee.
20.PW17 Dr. Anil Bansal deposed that in December, 2009, he was Joint Secretary and Hon. Chairman of AntiQuackery Cell of Indian Medical Association. On 08/01/2010, complainant Madhumita came to his office at ITO, Delhi, and gave a typed written complaint against a quack alongwith photocopies of supporting documents. He went through the complaint and referred it to Delhi Medical Council through forwarding letter Ex. PW17/A for necessary action.
21.PW18 Swapnil Jhaldiyal, Dy. Manager, ICICI Bank, Janakpuri, produced certified copy Ex. PW18/A (colly.) of bank statement of account holder Supriyo Mukherjee for the period 04/04/2009 to 28/06/2010. The accompanying certificate U/s. 65B Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW18/B.
22.Accused Supriyo Mukherjee admitted genuineness of FSL report No. F.S.L.2010/D0651 dated 22/07/2013, U/s. 294 CrPC. For this reason, requirement to prove the said document through examination of witnesses, was FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 12/21 obviated and witnesses were dropped.
23.All the incriminating evidence that came on record in the deposition of prosecution witnesses was put to the accused persons and their statement were recorded U/s. 313 CrPC. They denied all allegations and asserted that they were falsely implicated in the present case.
24.In his defence, accused Supriyo Mukherjee examined DW1 Parvez Khan. DW1 deposed that he knew accused Supriyo for 910 years. DW1 had a shop of repair of musical instruments at Jail Road, Hari Nagar, where, accused Supriyo visited to purchase a violin. DW1 stated that he became acquainted with the accused and used to visit his house. He stated that he came to know that accused Supriyo was working as Medical Representative (MR). He stated that he had not seen any letterhead or visiting card of the accused as a doctor, neither saw any medical related instrument at his home. DW1 stated that at one point of time when his father was will, accused Supriyo gave him some tablet but did not charge him anything. There is nothing in the testimony of DW1 that adds to or subtracts anything from the prosecution case.
25.(a) Accused Supriyo Mukherjee deposed as a DW2 in his defence in pursuance of application filed U/s. 315 CrPC. DW2 Supriyo deposed he came to Delhi from Ranchi in the year 1995 and worked in Wyeth Limited Company as a business executive. In the year 1998, during a train journey he met co accused Ishani Banerjee. He visited her house 23 times at Kalkaji, New Delhi, and treated her as his elder sister. In the year 1999, coaccused Ishani Banerjee visited him at his house at Prem Nagar. He stated that he has degree in MBA Marketing and Finance from ICPA, Tripura, and B. Pharma from Dispur College, Badarpur. Thereafter, he got himself registered with Delhi Pharmacy FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 13/21 Council through registration certificate Ex. DW2/A.
25.(b) In the year 2009, on the day of festival Rakshabandhan, he went to house of coaccused Ishani Banerjee where he met complainant Ms. Madhumita and her son Indranil. Complainant told him of kidney ailment of her son for the last 56 years and about his treatment from Dr. Jacob at Vallore. He stated that he advised complainant to consult Dr. A.K. Bhalla, Nephrologist at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and gave his phone number to the complainant.
25.(c) In September 2009, the complainant contacted him and came to his home with a list of medicines. The complainant stated that the medicines were very costly in the market and requested him to arrange for the same at a cheaper cost. He alongwith the complainant went to Yusuf Sarai from where he arranged the medicines at 50% discount for the complainant. Since complainant did not have the money required to purchase the medicines she requested him to pay Rs.20,000/ for the medicines and asked him to obtain bill of medicines at their MRP from the stockist. Later on, the complainant transferred Rs.20,000/ to his ICICI Bank account through her relative.
25.(d) DW2 Supriyo stated that he received a request from complainant that she had lost the bill of medicines purchased from Yusuf Sarai and requested him to issue another slip of medicines and dosage schedule of the same. On request, he prepared the slip of medicines and dosage schedule on plain paper and send it to her through courier. In October - November 2009, he went to PS Hari Nagar at the directions of the SHO. He told the SHO that he was Medical Representative with Wyeth Limited Company. He told the SHO that the visiting card of AIIMS was not got printed by him. He stated that police searched his home but did not find any medicine etc. there. He stated that on FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 14/21 05/02/2010, two police officials took him to PS Hari Nagar and obtained his signatures on some blank papers. He stated that he did not give any disclosure statement to police.
26.DW3 Pradyut Kumar Banerjee was examined in defence by accused Ishani Banerjee. DW3 deposed that in June 2009 his wife met accused Supriyo Mukherjee while traveling in train. Accused Supriyo Mukherjee introduced himself as a doctor in AIIMS hospital to her. His wife had uterus problem which she discussed with accused Supriyo. Accused Supriyo assured wife of DW3 that he will give her some medicines and she will be healthy. After some days, accused Supriyo Mukherjee came to his house and gave some medicines to his wife. Accused Supriyo called wife of DW3 as his sister. Accused Supriyo told DW3 that he will take cost of medicines only when his wife gets relief. He paid Rs.8,904/ by cheque no. 163973 dated 28/10/2009 as cost of medicine to accused Supriyo. He produced his original passbook and cheque book Ex. DW3/1 and Ex. DW3/2 respectively in support of his testimony.
27.(a) Accused Ishani Banerjee deposed as a DW4 in her defence in pursuance of application filed U/s. 315 CrPC. DW4 deposed that in June 2009 she met accused Supriyo Mukherjee in the train when she was coming from Kolkata to Delhi. After formal introduction accused Supriyo told her that he was a doctor at AIIMS and gave his visiting card to her. DW4 contacted accused Supriyo through telephone and discussed her gynae problem with him. After that, accused Supriyo gave her some medicine and injection.
27.(b) During this period, she met her brotherinlaw (jeth) and told him that Dr. Supriyo was a good doctor and he could tell the complainant to take advise from Dr. Supriyo for her son Indranil's ailment. On her suggestion, FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 15/21 complainant came to Delhi with her son Indranil and met accused Supriyo Mukherjee. She told the complainant that she knew accused Supriyo Mukherjee as a doctor and got relief from his medicines. On 10/02/2010, police officials came to her home and took her to police station where they arrested her. She stated that in September 2009, the complainant asked her about whereabouts of Dr. Supriyo Mukherjee as her son was in critical condition. DW4 stated that she herself did not know the whereabouts of Dr. Supriyo Mukherjee.
28.I have heard the final arguments from Ld. Addl. PP for State and from Ld. defence counsels.
29.(a) It is palpable from the evidence that Indranil, the son of complainant Smt. Madhumita had been suffering from kidney ailments when they met accused Supriyo Mukherjee. The complainant met accused Supriyo Mukherjee in July 2009, through accused Ishani Banerjee, who is a relative of the complainant. Accused Ishani Banerjee had introduced accused Supriyo Mukherjee as a doctor to the complainant
29.(b) The forensic report no. F.S.L.2010/D0651 dated 22/07/2013, was admitted by accused Supriyo Mukherjee U/s. 294 CrPC. As per said report, the person who wrote the red enclosed writings / signatures stamped and marked S1 to S16 (specimen signatures and handwriting dated 14/12/2009 and 17/01/2010 of accused Supriyo) also wrote the red enclosed writings / signatures similarly stamped and marked Q2, Q3 and Q5 to Q10 (on two letterheads and application form of accused Supriyo Mukherjee). The above mentioned forensic report was, inter alia, based on medical diagnosis and medicine prescription slips (Ex. P4) on the letterhead and in the handwriting, FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 16/21 signature and stamp of accused Supriyo Mukherjee. The letterheads Ex. P4 used by accused Supriyo Mukherjee have the following description of accused Supriyo Mukherjee printed on the top :
Dr. Supriyo Mukherjee M.B.B.S., D.G.O., M.S. (A.I.I.M.S.), F.I.C.O.G. (U.K.), F.R.C.O.G (EDIN) GYNAECOLOGIST (Specialty in Infertility) · Regn. No. 716
30.The said letterheads have been used to mention diagnosis of the kidney ailment of patient Mr. Indranil Sadhu Khan, aged 21 years, and medicines have been prescribed to patient Indranil. The letterhead Ex.P4 with prescription bears following stamp of accused Supriyo Mukherjee :
DR. SUPRIYO MUKHERJEE A.I.I.M.S. HOSPITAL New Delhi Regn. No. 716 06/09/2009
31.The handwriting and signatures of accused Supriyo Mukherjee appearing on the letterheads Ex.P4 being established through the FSL report no. F.S.L.2010/D0651 dated 22/07/2013, there is no scope for doubt that accused Supriyo Mukherjee diagnosed and treated patient Indranil for his kidney ailment and prescribed medicines to him as a doctor working in AIIMS hospital. PW10 Dr. Girish Tyagi and PW13 Dr. A.K. Saxena proved that accused Supriyo Mukherjee had no medical qualification, neither did he work in AIIMS hospital. In fact, accused Supriyo Mukherjee himself stated that he had no medical qualification and he merely worked as a Medical Representative of Wyeth Limited Company. Accused Supriyo did not adduce evidence in support of his contention that he worked as a Medical FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 17/21 Representative of Wyeth Limited Company. Thus, there is no credibility in the defence raised by him and the same is rejected. Accused Supriyo himself stated that on request of the complainant he wrote the list and dosage of medicines to be taken by patient Indranil and sent it to complainant by courier.
32.The visiting card Ex. P1 of accused Supriyo Mukherjee relied upon by the prosecution bear following details :
A.I.I.M.S. HOSPITAL Dr. Supriyo Mukherjee M.B.B.S., D.G.O., M.S., F.I.C.O.G. (U.K. LONDON), F.R.C.O.G (EDIN, SCOTLAND) DEPT. GYNAECOLOGY The visiting card bears three mobile phone numbers and three email addresses of accused Supriyo Mukherjee. The description of accused Supriyo mentioned on visiting card Ex. P1 matches with his description printed on the letterheads Ex. P4. The visiting card Ex. P1 and letterheads Ex. P4 were handed over to IO by the complainant during investigation vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. Accused Supriyo offered no plausible explanation in respect of the visiting card in his deposition as DW2.
33.Accused Supriyo Mukherjee admitted that he received Rs.20,000/ from complainant Smt. Madhumita but raised the defence that the complainant gave the said amount to him as reimbursement for the same amount paid by him to pharmacist on behalf of complainant for purchase of medicines. Accused Supriyo Mukherjee did not show any purchase bill or other payment details regarding payment made to the pharmacist on behalf of the complainant. The FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 18/21 defence seems to be unreliable and taken as an afterthought.
34.Upon appreciation of evidence it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Supriyo Mukherjee impersonated as a doctor working at AIIMS hospital because of which complainant agreed to get her son Indranil treated by the accused for his kidney ailment. Accused Supriyo Mukherjee, in this manner, deceived the complainant, treated her son Indranil for kidney ailment without holding any medical qualification and made the complainant pay him for the false medical treatment.
35.Accused Supriyo Mukherjee has been charged, inter alia, for the offence U/s. 308 IPC on the complaint that he administered false treatment to patient Indranil for his kidney problem because of which the medical condition of patient Indranil deteriorated and he had to be shifted to Delhi at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in critical condition. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that accused Supriyo Mukherjee shall be presumed to know that his deceitful impersonation as a doctor working in government hospital and false treatment of patient Indranil for his kidney disease was such that if he by that act caused the death of patient Indranil, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
36.In this regard, I have considered the report Ex. PW2/A dated 10/06/2010 given by Dr. A.K. Bhalla, Department of Nephrology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, to SHO PS Hari Nagar. As per report, patient Indranil was admitted in the said hospital on 10/10/2009 with advanced renal failure. Patient Indranil had history of some drug intake following which he developed skin rash and fever. He was put on maintenance hemodialysis and was discharged in stable condition on FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 19/21 19/10/2009. Patient Indraninl underwent renal transplantation on 16/01/2010, the donor being his own father.
37.As per report, since patient Indranil was having primary glomerular disease (MPGN) which is biopsy proven since 2005 and the disease is progressive in nature, his kidney disease had deteriorated in natural course and it was difficult to say whether any drug has contributed to the illness. As per report, in all probability basic primary glomerular disease was the cause of kidney failure in this patient (patient Indranil). In view of the report Ex. PW2/A, it is difficult to reach the conclusion that the treatment administered by accused Supriyo Mukherjee to patient Indranil could have resulted in his death, although, as a false treatment it was potentially dangerous to health of the patient. Evidence of causation of bodily harm by accused Supriyo Mukherjee to patient Indranil is absent, whereas, the act of the accused was potentially harmful and painful considering the renal condition of patient Indranil when his false treatment was started by the accused. The offence U/s. 308 IPC is not proved against accused Supriyo Mukherjee. However, offence U/s. 323 IPC has been proved against accused Supriyo Mukherjee as he voluntarily caused hurt by causing bodily pain to patient Indranil through false kidney treatment.
38.There is no evidence that accused Ishani Banerjee colluded or conspired with accused Supriyo Mukherjee to cheat the complainant. There is no evidence that she knew that accused Superiyo Mukhejee was an imposter. There is, indeed, no evidence that accused Ishani Banerjee monetarily gained from the money obtained by accused Supriyo through cheating from the complainant. In the absence of evidence, accused Ishani Banerjee is entitled to benefit of doubt.
FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 20/2139.As a result, accused Ishani Banerjee is acquitted of all the offences charged against her. Accused Supriyo Mukherjee is acquitted of the offence charged U/s.308/120B/34 IPC. However, accused Supriyo Mukherjee is convicted for the offence U/s. 170/419/420/323 IPC for impersonating as a doctor working in government hospital, cheating the complainant of her money as well as for voluntarily causing hurt to patient Indranil.
40.Copy of this judgment be given to accused Supriyo Mukherjee free of cost.
41.File be consigned to record record after completion of all necessary formalities.
Announced in the open court dated 3rd of February, 2020 (VISHAL SINGH) ASJ03, WEST/DELHI FIR No. 406/2009 PS Hari Nagar St. Vs. Supriyo Mukherjee & Anr. Page 21/21