Supreme Court acquits medical practitioners in Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act case

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: February 6, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 122

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a conviction stand when the key witness’s testimony is doubtful and other evidence is contradictory? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving two medical practitioners accused of violating the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. The core issue revolved around whether the prosecution had successfully proven that the appellants were practicing medicine without the necessary qualifications.

The Supreme Court bench consisted of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case began with allegations that the appellants were running a medical clinic in Nagpur without proper qualifications, violating Sections 33 and 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. On April 16, 2004, a police sub-inspector, acting on information, sent a “punter” (a decoy witness), Yamuna Prabhakar Dekate, to the appellants’ clinic. Dekate claimed she was treated for a supposed injury and paid Rs. 50. Subsequently, a police raid was conducted, and a prescription chit was seized. The appellants were then charged with practicing medicine without a valid degree or certification. The appellants contended that they were running a licensed medical shop and the case was fabricated due to a dispute with their landlord.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants were initially convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, on April 16, 2004, and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine for violating Section 33(2) of the Act, along with a fine for violating Section 36(2). The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, upheld this conviction on December 24, 2008. The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, also dismissed the appellants’ revision petition on January 22, 2009, thus confirming the lower court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Sections 33 and 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.

Section 33(2) of the Act states:

“No person shall practice medicine in the State unless he is registered under this Act.”

Section 36(2) of the Act states:

“Any person who acts in contravention of any of the provisions of this section shall, on conviction, be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.”

These sections essentially prohibit individuals from practicing medicine in Maharashtra without proper registration and prescribe penalties for violations.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that they were running a licensed medical shop, not practicing medicine.
• They contended that the case was fabricated due to a dispute with their landlord, who wanted to evict them.
• They argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was contradictory and unreliable.
• They pointed out that the key witness, PW-6, admitted she had no injury, making her claim of treatment unbelievable.
• They also argued that the prescription chit (Ex.32) was not properly proved in accordance with law.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the appellants were practicing medicine without a valid degree or license, violating the Act.
• They contended that the prosecution had presented sufficient oral and documentary evidence to prove the appellants’ guilt.
• They asserted that the trial court, appellate court, and High Court had correctly convicted the appellants based on the evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

✓ Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 33 and 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, was justified based on the evidence presented.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any previous cases or legal provisions other than the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the lack of credible evidence and the presence of material contradictions in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the following points:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on factual discrepancies and the lack of reliable evidence. The Court found the testimony of the key witness, PW-6, to be unbelievable, as she admitted she had no injury, which contradicted the prosecution’s claim that she was treated by the appellants. The Court also noted that the prescription chit was not properly proved and that there were material contradictions in the testimonies of other witnesses. The possibility of bias, due to the ongoing dispute between the appellants and their landlord, further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases.

The Supreme Court quoted:

“If we closely consider the deposition of PW-6, in her cross-examination, she has stated that she had no injury on her hand. When she was not having any injury on her hand, it is unbelievable that the appellant-accused no.2 would still apply medicine on her and also put bandage.”

The Supreme Court also stated:

“In our considered view, the evidence of Yamuna Prabhakar Dekate PW-6 who was just a passerby and was called by the police as a pointer witness, does not inspire confidence and the conviction of the appellants ought not have been based on such evidence.”

The Supreme Court further stated:

“By considering the totality of the evidence and the material on record, we are of the view that, the guilt of the appellants has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to benefit of doubt.”

Key Takeaways

✓ The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of credible and consistent evidence in criminal cases.

✓ The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

✓ The court highlighted that the testimony of a key witness must be reliable and believable.

✓ The judgment underscores the need for thorough investigation and proper presentation of evidence in legal proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants and discharged their bail bonds.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained when the key evidence is unreliable, and the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This case reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in criminal cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of the existing principles of criminal law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellants underscores the critical role of credible evidence in criminal proceedings. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was weakened by the unreliable testimony of the key witness, contradictions in other witness statements, and the failure to properly prove the prescription chit. This judgment serves as a reminder that convictions must be based on solid evidence and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof.