M R GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was a Psychiatrist in the Government General Hospital, Ernakulam in January-February 2001. During the said period, four couples were forwarded for counselling by a Psychiatrist, from the Family Court, Ernakulam. Accordingly, those eight parties to different proceedings appeared before the appellant herein as Psychiatrist for undergoing counselling. Some appeared in January 2001 and the others appeared in February 2001. All the eight persons underwent counselling, and certificate was also promptly forwarded to the Court by the appellant. Thereafter, in August 2001 for complaints were received by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ernakulam, alleging that the appellant demanded and accepted illegal gratification from them for conducting counselling.

(2.) The accused appeared before the learned Trial Judge and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. He accordingly, claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses in the trial court including the four complainants and their spouses. The prosecution also proved Exts.P1 to P15 documents. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and submitted that he had not received anything from the complainants, and that the complaints received in the Family Court or all false complaints. The accused examined one witness in defense. Exts. D1 to D7 were also marked during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence, the leaned Trial Judge found the accused guilty, that he had accepted fee unauthorizedly from the complainants, for undergoing counselling as directed by the Family Court.On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of 25,000/- under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, to undergo another term of rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of 25,000/- under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, and to undergo yet another term of rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of 25,000/- under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the P.C. Act, by judgment dated 31.07.2006 in C.C.No.4 of 2004. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.

(3.) When this appeal came up for hearing, the leaned counsel for the appellant submitted that the whole prosecution case is tainted with genuine doubts, and that the inordinate delay of six months in making complaint stands not in any manner explained. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is absolutely nothing to suspect the witnesses or to doubt their evidence in Court, and that when there is such satisfactory evidence, delay is immaterial. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the entire case records including the deposition given by the material witnesses, and also the files produced from the hospital. I find that the long delay of six months in this case in making complaint before the learned Family Court Judge stands not explained by the prosecution by any material, and that the whole prosecution case is doubtful.The leaned Public Prosecutor cited a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991 AIR(SC) 63 and submitted that delay by itself is not a ground to doubt or reject the prosecution case. It was a murder case, where the FIR was delayed by a few hours. In view of clear positive evidence proving the alleged incident, the Honourable Supreme Court held that simply on the basis of delay of hours, the prosecution case cannot be suspected. That is not the position here.