Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Ratan @ R.P.Anand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY , J
Criminal Appeal No.678/2008
Ram Ratan @ R.P. Anand S/o Durga Prasad Prajapati
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
====================================================
For the appellant: Shri Rajkamal Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For the respondent: Shri S.K. Rai, Government Advocate.
====================================================
JUDGMENT
Reserved on 21/05/2018 Delivered on 19/6/2018 This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22/02/2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.42/2007, whereby learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced him R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine amount further S.I. for six month.
2. Brief facts of the case are that at the time of incident, the appellant lived at village Muredi in Raghuveer Joshi's house on rent and did Medical practice. Deceased Ramu Prasad Shukla also resided at village Muredi. He had been suffering from fever for two days, so on 12/10/2006 at 10 a.m., Ramu's uncle complainant Ramesh Prasad Shukla (PW/7) brought him to the appellant's clinic for treatment. Appellant examined deceased Ramu and administered one injection 2 into his left buttock and one hour after injection, Ramu's left leg swelled and started paining. Then Ramesh brought him to Laundi and showed him to Dr. M.D. Mishra (PW/12). He treated Ramu and at around 9:00 pm, Ramesh Prasad brought Ramu back to village Muredi, but Ramu did not get relief, his pain increased and his condition was deteriorated. On this, in the night at 11 p.m. Ramesh again took Ramu to the appellant, who again administered one injection to Ramu. But Ramu's trouble grew up and his whole left leg got swollen and pus started oozing out from his leg, so Ramesh again brought him to Laundi but Ramu died on the way. Ramesh showed Ramu to Dr. M. D. Mishra (PW/12) at Laundi, who examined Ramu and declared him dead. On that, Ramesh lodged the report at P.S. Laudi. On that, police registered inquest no.46/2006 (Ex.P-6) under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and inquired the matter. During inquiry, police prepared inquest memo (Ex.P-8) of dead body of deceased Ramu and sent his dead body to PHC Laundi for postmortem along with application (Ex.P-17), where Dr. J.P. Naik (PW/5) conducted autopsy of his dead body and gave postmortem report (Ex.P-4) to the effect that Ramu died due to shock as a result of septicemia. On that, police registered Crime no.283/06 for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC (Ex.P-18) against the appellant which was investigated by A.S.I. Rajendra Singh (PW14). During investigation, he prepared spot map (Ex.P-11) and seized one rubber seal, diary, books and cash memo from the appellant's clinic and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-13). He also recorded the case diary statements of Shyamu (PW/1), Ramdas Soni (PW/4), Ramesh Prasad (PW/7), Ramprasad Yadav (PW/8), Bindrawan (PW/11), Dr. M.D. 3 Mishra (PW/12), Ajay Shivhare, Nawab Singh, Nirpal Singh, Kandhi Ahirwar and Rameshwar Mishra. On 14/10/2006 he arrested appellant Ramratan and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P-19). On 13/06/06 Nayab Tehsildar, Chandla K.R.Niraj (PW/2) also inspected the appellant's clinic along with Dr. Naik and seized allopathic medicines which were kept there and prepared inspection memo (Ex.P/2) and seizure memo (Ex.P/3) and handed over the seized medicines in to the custody of Dr. J.P. Naik. On 18/10/2006, Rajendra Singh (PW14) seized that medicines from the possession of Dr. J.P. Naik and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-20).
3. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC before the JMFC, Laundi who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. On that charge sheet, S.T. No.42/2007 was registered. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. Although, the appellant abjured his guilt and took the defence that the appellant did not treat deceased Ramu nor did he practice as a Doctor, he was only a servant in the medical shop of Ajay. He has falsely been implicated in the case. In this regard, he also produced Chhotelal (Dw1), Bhopal Singh (PW/2) and Deshraj (DW/3) in his defence. However, after the trial learned Sessions Judge found appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to prosecution story itself, the deceased was initially treated by the 4 appellant and subsequently by the other doctors but it could not be established by the prosecution as to whose medicines caused reaction leading to death of the deceased. Deceased Ramu died due to Septicemia but it is not clear from the prosecution evidence that how the deceased got Septicemia. In the postmortem report also it is not mentioned that deceased died due to reaction of any medicine, which shows that deceased Ramu died natural death. As per the statement of the witnesses, nobody had seen the appellant giving treatment to the deceased. Ramesh (PW7) uncle of the deceased, who lodged the FIR also did not support the prosecution story. Learned trial Court without appreciating all these facts wrongly found appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that from the prosecution evidence, it is clearly proved that the appellant without having any knowledge and requisite degree for treating patients by allopathic medicine wrongly administered injection to deceased due to which deceased Ramu got Septicemia in his left buttock and died. So, the learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in finding the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offence.
6. On the point that deceased Ramu died on 13/10/2006 due to Septicemia there is no ambiguity in prosecution evidence. Dr J.P. Naik (PW5), who conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Ramu clearly deposed that on 13/10/2006 he was posted as a Medical Officer at CHC Laundi. On that date, he conducted an autopsy of the dead body of Ramu Shukla, son of Bhushan Shukla. In the postmortem, he found one black colour discolouration on his left buttock and thigh which was 5 highly congested and blood and pus were oozing out from the injury. That injury was caused due to injection. He also deposed that in his opinion, Ramu died due to Septicemia and duration of his death is between 12 to 24 hours from the postmortem. In this regard, his statement also corroborated from the postmortem report (Ex.P-4). He is an independent witness, appellant did not give any important challenge of his statement in his cross-examination. There is no infirmity in his statement in this regard, so there is no reason to disbelieve his statement. From his statement, it is clearly proved that Ramu died on 13/10/07 due to Septicemia and which was caused due to injection administered to him in his left buttock.
7. On the point that appellant, who did not have any knowledge and requisite degree for treating patients by allopathic medicine administered the injection to Ramu, due to which Septicemia was caused to Ramu, Shyamu (PW1) clearly deposed that the appellant, prior the incident, was living in Raghuveer Joshi's house at village Muredi on rent and did Medical practice. Deceased Ramu had been suffering from fever for two days, so on 12/10/2006 at 10 a.m. he brought him to the appellant's clinic for treatment. Appellant examined deceased and prescribed some medicines, which he bought from Ajay Shivhare's shop on the basis of a slip given by the appellant and then gave them to his brother deceased Ramu. At that time, the appellant also administered an injection in his buttock, thereafter, he brought Ramu back to the house. But next day Ramu's left hip started paining. He started crying due to pain. On this, he again showed Ramu to appellant. He had said that Ramu would have to be taken to Laundi 6 Hospital on which he took Ramu to Laundi and showed him to Dr. Mishra at his home, he asked him to take Ramu to government hospital which he did and showed him to Dr. Naik, who treated Ramu and gave medicines to him. Thereafter, he brought Ramu back home, but Ramu did not get relief, his condition deteriorated and at 3-3:30 p.m. at night pus started oozing out from the place, where appellant administered injection in Ramu's hip and when he was taking Ramu to Chhatarpur for treatment Ramu died on the way at the bus stand. He took Ramu to Laundi, where Dr. Mishra examined Ramu and told that Ramu had passed away.
8. His statement is also corroborated by the statement of Rameshwar Mishra (PW13), who also deposed that at the time of the incident, the appellant treated villagers. Ramu was ill so he took Ramu to appellant for treatment. The appellant gave him one injection due to which Ramu's leg got infected and he died. It is also corroborated by the statement of Dr. Somdutt Mishra (PW12), who examined deceased Ramu before his death on 12/10/2006 and soon after his death on 13/10/2006. He deposed that one day before the death of Ramu, he examined Ramu at 3 p.m. in his house. At that time Ramu told him that he suffered pain in his thigh. He also told him that in the village, the appellant treated him and administered an injection in his left thigh and since then he had been suffering from pain in his thigh. On examination, he found swelling on Ramu's left thigh. He treated him and also gave him an injection and referred him to the District Hospital Chhatarpur. Next day relative of the deceased Ramu again took Ramu 7 to him and at that time he found that Ramu had died. Ramu died due to swelling on his left thigh, which was caused due to infection.
9. Although, appellant took the defence that he did not treat deceased Ramu nor did he practice as a Doctor. At the time of incident, he was only a servant in the medical shop of Ajay. In this regard, he also produced Chhotelal (DW/1), Bhopal Singh (DW/2) and Deshraj (DW/3) in his defence. They deposed that the appellant did not do medical practice in his village. At the time of incident, appellant was a servant of Ajay Shivhare, who runs a medical shop in the village and appellant did not treat Ramu. But, from the statement of K.R. Niraj (PW2), who on 13/10/07 inspected the appellant's clinic and seized the allopathic medicine from his clinic and prepared inspection report and seizure memo (Ex.P/2 & Ex.P/3) respectively and also proved by the Dr. J.P. Naik (PW/5) and Nand Kishore (PW6), witness of those proceedings and by the statements of other villager Ramdas Soni (PW4) and Ramesh (PW7) it is proved that at the time of incident, the appellant lived in their village in Raghuveer Joshi's house on rent and took medical practice in the village and treated the villagers. On that point, there is no infirmity in the statements of above-mentioned prosecution witnesses. So, there is no reason to disbelieve their statement in this regard. From the evolution of statements of the defence witnesses Chhotelal (DW/1), Bhopal Singh (DW/2) and Deshraj (DW/3) and considering the prosecution evidence also it is clear that the above mentioned defence witnesses have given such false statements that at the time of incident, appellant neither ran a clinic in the village Muderi nor did he treat villagers, only for saving appellant. 8 Learned trial Court after elaborately considering the statements of these witnesses and the prosecution evidence rightly disbelieved their statements. From the prosecution evidence, it is clearly proved that at the time of incident, appellant ran a clinic in the village Muderi and treated villagers.
10. Appellant did not produce any evidence showing that he had any knowledge and requisite degree for treating patients by allopathic medicine. So from the prosecution evidence, it is clearly proved that appellant who did not have any knowledge and requisite degree for treating patients by allopathic medicine on 12/10/07 administered the injection to Ramu which caused him Septicemia leading to his death on 13/10/07.
11. Appellant did not produce any evidence showing that he was having any knowledge or degree for practicing in allopathy. It is commonly known that allopathy medicine may cause reaction due to which patient may die and appellant knowing this fact that due to the reaction of medicine which was given by him to Ramu, he may die administered the injection to Ramu. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in finding appellant guilty for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of IPC.
12. The sentence for seven years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine amount further S.I. for six month is also adequate and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment. Hence, appeal filed by the appellant/accused stands dismissed. The 9 period already undergone shall be set off from the period of substantive jail sentence.
13. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) JUDGE m/-
Digitally signed by MONIKACHOURASIA Date: 2018.06.20 17:22:33 +05'30'