Orissa High Court Acquits Doctor Accused Of Taking ₹300 Bribe In 1998 For Issuing Favourable Medical Certificate

Recently, the Orissa High Court has acquitted a doctor who was accused of demanding and receiving ₹300 in 1998 for issuing a favourable medical certificate to a person in a criminal case.

While criticising the trial Court judgment to be ‘one-sided’ against the appellant-doctor, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,

“After careful consideration of the evidence on record, I am of the humble view that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities. The reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court is faulty and genuine material evidence available on record in favour of the appellant has been overlooked and it appears that the impugned judgment is one-sided in favour of the prosecution.”

The Prosecution Case

The informant had gone to the Project Hospital, Khatiguda, being sent by the police, for treatment of a bleeding injury that he had received from an assault. He alleged that the appellant being the medical officer of the said hospital, demanded ₹500 for his complete treatment and issuance of a favourable injury report.

However, the informant expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount and paid only ₹100 to the appellant. The appellant asked him to pay the rest amount within four to five days. The informant alleged that when he was discharged on 04.09.1998, the appellant demanded him the amount.

Thus, the informant lodged a written report with the vigilance unit of the police. Accordingly, a trap was planned and the same was laid to get hold of the appellant while he takes the bribe amount. The informant, after being instructed by the trap laying officer, placed ₹300 on the table of the appellant.

Subsequently, the appellant was challenged by the trap-party members for accepting bribe and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial Court found him guilty under the aforesaid offences and convicted him. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court assailing the impugned order.

Court’s Findings

The Court noted that the informant in his examination-in-chief has stated that he kept the money as per the instruction of the appellant-doctor on his table. However, in the cross-examination, he denied about the factum of any demand of money made by the appellant for his treatment and stated that he did not pay anything for the treatment and the appellant discharged him from the hospital after his treatment was over.

The Court also noted that the over-hearing witness did not see the appellant-doctor demanding or receiving any money from the informant. He only saw the informant keeping the notes on the appellant’s table.

“Law is well settled that mere recovery of the bribe amount from the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. In order to constitute an offence under section 7 of 1988 Act, proof of demand is a sine qua non,” the Court held.

It was brought to the notice of the Court that though the informant has alleged that he was discharged from the hospital on 04.09.1998 and on the same day, the appellant reiterated his demand for bribe, but in the bed-head ticket, it was mentioned that the informant was discharged on 28.08.1998.

Therefore, the Court was of the considered opinion that when the informant was already discharged from the hospital on 28.08.1998 and his injury report was forwarded to the police prior to it, it is quite improbable that the appellant-doctor would demand the bribe amount almost seven days after the discharge, i.e. on 04.09.1998.

Further, the attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that the hand-washes of the appellant taken in the hospital, were sealed after those were brought to the Vigilance Office as it carried a seal of an Administrative Officer who was not a part of the trap-party. The Court thus held, in such circumstances, tampering with the hand-washes cannot be completely ruled out.

“It is a settled principle of law that apart from the factum of hand wash of the accused being taken properly following due procedure of law in presence of witnesses, it is also the duty of the prosecution to establish and cover the entire path right from the beginning by adducing cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence that the hand wash solution of the accused was properly sealed, preserved and there was no chance of tampering with the same during its retention by the investigating agency before being produced in Court for sending it to the chemical examiner,” the Court observed.

Lastly, the Court also took note of the conduct of the appellant after he was trapped. He was confronted by the trap party members and was asked as to whether he has accepted the bribe amount from the informant, to which he confidently answered in negative. The Court held that such conduct of the appellant is relevant under section 6 of the Evidence Act as res gestae.

As a consequence, the Court was constrained to hold that there is no sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence on record to establish the guilt of the appellant and therefore, acquitted him of all the charges.

“In the absence of any clinching evidence relating to the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant, no guilt can be fastened upon him in a callous manner. In the circumstances, since the guilt of the appellant has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt, I am constrained to give benefit of doubt to the appellant.”

Case Title: Pradeepta Kumar Praharaj v. State of Odisha (Vig.)

Case No.: CRLA No. 172 of 2007

Date of Judgment: August 21, 2023

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Satya Smruti Mohanty, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. M.S. Rizvi, Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 91

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment