Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. Gopala Gowda, A.K. Goel, JJ.
Surinder Kaur - Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1195, 1187, 1197, 1198, 1185 and 1188 of 2010
Decided On: 18.09.2014
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13 - Indian Penal Code - Section 120-B – payment of fine to undergo imprisonment – Appeal against Conviction – Circumstantial Evidence – Appellants who were staff nurses/Pharmacist also made false entries/overwriting/cuttings in record of hospital - An enquiry was conducted and these facts were established - After investigation accused were sent up for trial prosecution examined 16 witnesses and produced FSL Report about hand writing of the accused in the record of the hospital. The accused pleaded innocence and submitted that was inimical to on account of which the accused were falsely implicated – Held, Above clinching circumstances leave no doubt as to involvement of in creating false evidence to help - As far as other members of staff are concerned in absence of clinching evidence even if their handwriting is established their culpability is not established beyond reasonable doubt though suspicion may arise - Standard of proof required in a criminal trial is not of mere preponderance of probabilities but of proof beyond doubt - Applying the above standard other Appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt – Court also find that there is no evidence of taking of pecuniary advantage by which is necessary for charge Under Section 13(1)(d) Presumption Under Section 20 has been wrongly invoked as same does not apply in respect of said clause – Thus her conviction and sentence under Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be sustained - Accordingly while court uphold conviction of except for charge Under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and court acquit other accused giving them benefit of doubt An attempt has clearly been made to help accused for extraneous consideration for which could not escape responsibility - Thus even if evidence of and enquiry report were kept out of consideration, it is clearly established that who issued false prescription was responsible for making of false record with a view to help - Even if there is no direct evidence that other staff members who made entries had the guilty mind circumstantial evidence with regard to role of was of clinching nature which stood corroborated by other evidence - Appeals disposed of
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Goel, J.
1. These appeals have been filed by Surinder Kaur, Ravinder Kaur, Jasbir Kaur, Balwinder Kaur, Amar Nath and Sukhwinder Kaur against the common judgment dated 26th March, 2009 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 689-SB, 708-SB, 780-SB, 711-SB, 807-SB and 752-SB, and of 2006 respectively arising out of the conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge, Ambala holding all the Appellants guilty Under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short the "Indian Penal Code") and sentencing them 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. Except Amar Nath, all others have been found guilty Under Section 218, 466 and 474 Indian Penal Code and Under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable Under Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced by the trial Court as follows:-
U/s 218 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year 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 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 Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and in default off payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 15 days.
U/s 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 Rigorous Imprisonment for 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.
2. The High Court confirmed the above conviction and sentence with the modification that sentence has been reduced to one year instead of two years while maintaining the sentence of fine.
3. FIR No. 20 dated 18th December, 1997 was registered at Vigilance Bureau, Ambala with the allegation that on 29th August, 1996, Gurdev Singh, Sant Ram etc. of Village Kurbanpur were attacked by Amar Nath etc. of the said village. The Appellant Dr. Ravinder Kaur created false evidence of Amar Nath being admitted to Community Health Centre at Chaurmastpur prior to the occurrence. Appellants Jasbir Kaur, Surinder Kaur, Balwinder Kaur, Sukhwinder Kaur who were staff nurses/Pharmacist also made false entries/overwriting/cuttings in the record of the hospital. An enquiry was conducted and these facts were established. After investigation, the accused were sent up for trial.
4. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and produced FSL Report (Ex. P-E) about the hand writing of the accused in the record of the hospital. The accused pleaded innocence and submitted that Dr. K.S. Rana (PW 11) was inimical to Dr. Ravinder Kaur on account of which the accused were falsely implicated. The defence examined Prem Prakash Sharma (DW 1), Vikash Sharma (DW 2) and Record Keeper Ajay Rao (DW 3).
5. It may be necessary to give a very brief resume of the evidence on record. Mohan Lal (PW 1) is an employee in the office of Civil Surgeon, Ambala from whom record of the hospital relevant to the present case was taken over on 18th February, 1997 by the Vigilance Department. The said record comprised of admission register (Ex. P 1), OPD register, daily patients report book, MLR of Sant Ram etc. (injured in the incident on 29th August, 1996), bed head tickets of Amar Nath etc. Siri Kishan (PW 2) from Police Station, SVB Ambala deposed about the handing over of some record to Shri Mohinder Singh Malik-Deputy Superintendent of Police. Ved Kumar (PW 3) from Community Health Centre, Chaurmastpur proved the handing over of copies of posting orders of the accused who were public servants. Ranjit Kaur (PW 4) deposed about the duties of making entries in the OPD register (Ex. P2) and about interpolations in the record. Karan Singh Dalai (PW 5) proved the order of sanction. Kuldeep Kumar (PW 6) proved the letter written by the Vi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
