RIYAZUDDIN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Riyazuddin in Crl.Appeal No.577/2013 challenges the judgment dated February 25, 2013 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 314/34 IPC and Sections 5 (2) and 5 (3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (in short 'MTP Act') and the order dated March 04, 2013 directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,05,000/- for offence punishable under Sections 314/34 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years each for the offences punishable under Sections 5(2) and 5 (3) of the MTP Act. Out of the fine amount if realised Rs. 1,00,000/- has been directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Simultaneously the State has filed a leave to appeal petition, wherein leave was granted seeking conviction of Riyazuddin for the offence punishable under Sections 304/34 IPC as well and that of Shabana Talat for the offences punishable under Sections 304/314/34 IPC and Sections 5(2) and 5 (3) of the MTP Act in Crl.Appeal No.1153/2014.

(2.) Learned counsel for Riyazuddin contends that Riyazuddin was not the owner of Ayasha Clinic and was working at the clinic only as a compounder as stated by DW-1 Shabir Ahmed and PW-14 Shri Raj. There is no evidence on record that either Riyazuddin or Shabana Talat conducted surgery of the deceased Sushmita. There is no eye witness to the incident and the circumstantial evidence led is of a very weak character which does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the offences for which Riyazuddin and Shabana Talat were charged with. The conduct of the complainant and his brother is highly unnatural. The documents seized cannot be relied upon in view of the overwriting thereon. Even as per PW-5 Manoj Kumar Karn, Dr.Huma Shamsi was the consultant however, she has already been discharged and the said order of discharge has not been challenged by the State. There are material improvements in the version of the husband of the deceased from the statement recorded in the rukka. The prosecution has neither proved the actus reas nor the mens rea. Further PW-5 Manoj Kumar consented to the surgery being performed. The investigation being tainted Riyazuddin deserves acquittal on all counts.

(3.) Learned counsel for Shabana Talat contends that no witness has identified Shabana Talat. She was not named in the rukka. The material witnesses have not even stated that Shabana Talat met them on February 04, 2006 and hence there being no evidence against Shabana Talat the learned Trial Court rightly acquitted her of the charges framed and the judgment on the said count cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference by this Court.