JUDGMENT :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 20.11.99 passed by the Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 1999 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 420; to undergo RI for four years and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 467; to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 468; to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 471 with default stipulations.

2. As per prosecution case, complainant Dilip Kumar son of Jhumuk Lal lodged a report on 14.10.1998 at Police Station Arjunda alleging that the appellant has administered injection to his father as a result of which there was swelling in his hand and when he complained to the appellant, he administered another injection. It is further alleged that on account of which his father was admitted at district hospital Rajnandgaon, where he died. Merg intimation was given, thereafter panchnama was prepared and the body was sent for postmortem examination. After filing of the charge sheet, trial judge has framed charge under Sections 304, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

4. By the judgment impugned, the Court below has acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304 IPC but has convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the court below has erred in law by convicting the appellant under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant is guilty of the said offences. It is further submitted that no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution in respect of the fabrication of documents. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any intention on the part of the appellant to get Jhumuklal treated by him. Counsel for the appellant submits that the court below has erred in law by convicting him under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The trial court has acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 304 IPC and under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant is guilty for other offences. In this case, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution in respect of the fabrication of the documents. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was no instigation on the part of the appellant to get Jhumuklal treated by him. This aspect of the matter has also been ignored by the trial court. The prosecution evidence suffers from infirmities and cannot be relied upon therefore, the judgment dated 20.11.1993 is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Dilip Kumar (PW-1) son of Jhumuklal has stated that his father was injured while plucking ivy gourd from the backyard therefore he took him to Dr. Sheetal for treatment. He has stated that the doctor prescribed for medicine and injection and at about 12-1.00 noon, he administered the injection to his father and at night, there was swelling in his hand and turned black. On the next day, he called the doctor and again he administered injection to him on his back and thereafter he did dressing on the injured portion. He has stated that in the next morning, condition of his father became more worse and therefore the doctor (appellant) advised to take him to Government Hospital Nikum. His father was admitted for 3-4 days and thereafter the doctors advised to shift him to higher center. After mutual consent between the appellant/doctor and the villagers, it was decided that the appellant would look af