Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Dharmendra and another against the State of Maharashtra, setting aside their conviction under Sections 33 and 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. The appellants were prosecuted for practicing medicine without possessing a valid degree, diploma, or license. The trial court convicted them, sentencing them to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which was upheld by the appellate court and the High Court in revision. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of PW-6, Yamuna Prabhakar Dekate, a pointer witness who claimed she was asked by police to visit the appellants' clinic, where she allegedly received treatment for an injury and was issued a prescription chit (Ex.32). However, in cross-examination, PW-6 admitted she had no injury on her hand, making it improbable that the appellants would have applied medicine and bandaged her. The prescription chit was not proved in accordance with law, and the seizure memo did not mention the medicine or bandage. Other prosecution witnesses, including the landlord's children and a neighbor, had material contradictions and were influenced by a tenancy dispute between the appellants and the landlord. The Supreme Court found that the evidence of PW-6 did not inspire confidence and that the guilt of the appellants was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court granted the appellants the benefit of doubt, set aside the conviction and sentence, and discharged their bail bonds.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Unreliable Witness - Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, Sections 33, 36 - Conviction based on testimony of pointer witness who had no injury and prescription chit not proved in accordance with law - Held that guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt and appellants entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 12-15). B) Evidence Law - Credibility of Witness - Pointer Witness - Testimony of PW-6, who was called by police and had no injury, was unreliable - Held that conviction ought not to be based on such evidence (Paras 12-13). C) Criminal Procedure - Acquittal - Perverse Findings - Courts below recorded findings contrary to evidence - Held that impugned judgment liable to be set aside (Para 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 33 and 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 was sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds. The Court held that the guilt of the appellants was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and they were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Credibility of witness
- Burden of proof in criminal cases
