Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

During cross­examination DW1 deposed that  he did not have   any  personal  knowledge  regarding  the  present  matter.    He could not say if the complainant had visited the hospital on her own or was brought by some other person for the treatment.

DW2 Dr. Amiya Banerjee (Psychiatrist) deposed that he had worked at VIMHANS hospital from the year 1998 till the year FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji           State  Vs.  Chanchal Chakraborty                     50 of  70 2008.   He   had   worked   there   as   Consultant   Psychiatrist.   He   was M.B.B.S/MD   in   Psychiatrist.   Thereafter,  witness   was   shown document Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2 and stated that it was correct that   the   aforesaid   treatment   papers   pertain   to   a   patient   namely, Tapasi Chakraborty and the same pertains to VIMHANS hospital. Since he treated the patient in the year 2004, he was not sure if he could   identify   her.   Thereafter,   the   witness   was   pointed   towards complainant, Tapasi Chakrabarty and upon seeing her, the witness stated that she seems to be familiar face. He was the part of the five doctors   unit   which   had   given   treatment   to   the   aforesaid   patient during   her   admission   in   the   hospital   at   the   time   mentioned   in document Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2. It was correct that he had given the treatment to the aforesaid patient during her stay in the hospital. The first discharged diagnosis on perusal of the aforesaid record shows that the patient was suffering from "schizophrenia, paranoid with obsessive compulsive symptoms". As per the second discharge   summary   the   patient   was   suffering   from  "obsessive compulsive   disorder".  At   that   time   when   the   aforesaid   patient (complainant)   was   given   treatment   by   him,   he   was   having   an experience   about   11   years   to   treat   such   patient.  Schizophrenia, paranoid with obsessive compulsive symptoms means illness where one   of   the   symptoms   was   suspicion.   Obsessive   compulsive disorder means various kind of repetitive thoughts and behaviors. Paranoid was a sub­type of schizophrenia. As per the record Ex.

FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji           State  Vs.  Chanchal Chakraborty                     54 of  70 Upon   being   further   asked   if   the   aforesaid   symptoms covered under the diseases, namely, schizophrenia or paranoid or obsessive  compulsive disorder. The witness  answered that any of the aforesaid 14 symptoms can be seen in patient with the above two disorder. However, just by themselves, they are not sufficient to establish the presence of this disorder. 

8. However, on the other hand Ld. Counsel for accused Chanchal Chakrabory has argued that in the present matter there are several contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses and the prosecution have failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He has argued that in the present matter accused Chanchal Chakraborty was charged for the offence U/s 498A IPC. He has argued that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable   doubt   since   the   prosecution   has   miserably   failed   to prove   that   the   accused   had   ever   treated   the   complainant   with FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji           State  Vs.  Chanchal Chakraborty                     56 of  70 cruelty. It is further argued that there was no unlawful demand of dowry made by the accused prior to or at the time of marriage or thereafter.   It   is   further   argued   that   the   complainant   was   always treated by love and affection by accused but she could not adjust in the family of accused and wanted to live separately and even when the   complainant   had   been   living   separately   with   the   accused   in Delhi from the year 1998 till 2008, it was the complainant who committed mental torture upon the accused since she was suffering from mental disorder and Schizophrenia and Obsessive compulsive disorder.   It   is   further   argued   that   the   allegations   of   demand   of dowry are made by the complainant as an after thought with the intention to falsely implicate the accused and there was no cruelty either   physical   or   mental   upon   the   complainant   allegedly committed   by   the   accused   and   there   are   no   public   witnesses examined by the prosecution and all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses. It is further argued that the alleged   incident   of   abortions   of   the   complainant   are   completely false and concocted as the averments made by the complainant in her complaint and in her testimony recorded are contradictory to each other and do not inspire confidence. It is further argued that the primary allegation of the complainant upon the accused that he had administered her medicines and injections and also admitted her in VIMHANS hospital only with the intention to declare her insane are also not probable and justified since it has already been FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji           State  Vs.  Chanchal Chakraborty                     57 of  70 proved by DW2 Dr. Amiya Banerjee being a reputed and expert witness   that  the  complainant  was  suffering  from    Schizophrenia and Paranoid with Obsessive compulsive disorder and further that she was given treatment for the same only upon the diagnosis and advise of the doctor and not upon  the ill intention of the accused. Further, PW5 being the son of the complainant has also admitted that the complainant  was suffering from mental ailment and the witness  did not  support the story of prosecution and was cross­ examined by the prosecution itself and therefore, accused is liable to be acquitted.