AKHAYA KUMAR BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT challenges the order of conviction passed against him by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh on 19.12.1996 in S.T. Case No. 280 of 1996. It appears from the impugned judgment that Appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Sections. 419. 468, 471 and 366, IPC on the allegation that by impersonating himself as a Registered Medical Practitioner and disclosing his name as 'Manoj Kumar Pradhan', he was doing medical practice for gain. He had also forged and fabricated documents" like prescription pad name plate, etc., by quoting a registration number with a view to deceive people and in that process he visited to the house of one Atal Chandra Sahu (P.W. No. 1) to give treatment to his wife (P.W. No. 4). On repeated visits to his house he gained acquaintance with the eldest daughter of P.W. No. 1 who was examined as P.W. No. 5 and on 17.1.1996, eloped with her. Instead of immediately reporting the matter to the Police so as to avoid publicity and bad name resulting in harassment and humiliation to his family P.W. No. 1 with his friends and relations made search and collected informations. On 26.1.1996, on getting information that the Appellant with P.W. No. 5, were staying at Govindpur (in Sambalpur District) he lodged FIR registered as Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No. 15 of 1996 and the girl was recovered from the house of P.W. No. 8 in village Pandiripathar under Govindpur Police -station. In course of that investigation, it could be un -earth that the Appellant is not a qualified medical practitioner, he had no better education than Standard VIII and the registration No. displayed in his name plate as Manoj Kumar Pradhan' belongs to some other Doctor. Under such circumstances, the Appellant was charge -sheeted, charged and tried for the offences already indicated above.

(2.) IN all, 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and it relied in six exhibited documents and two material objects. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the two other daughters of P.W. No. 1 and P.W. No. 7 -is his brother. All of them depose about the activities of the Appellant behaving as a Doctor besides the allurement persuasion and the cheating made by him. They alleged that Appellant kidnapped P.W. No. 5. P.Ws. 6 and 9 are the other independent witnesses who deposed about the activities of the Appellant behaving as a Doctor and cheating and persuading the villagers in that manner and in that respect, P.W. No. 6 himself was treated as a patient by the Appellant. P.Ws.10 and 11 are the witnesses to the seizure of different articles including sign board, blank prescription pad and prescription written by the Appellant. P.W. No. 12 is the Investigating Officer.

(3.) ON assessment of evidence on record trial Court recorded the finding regarding forging and fabricating documents by the Appellant to cheat the people including the family of P.W. No. 1 as a Medical Practitioner. The trial Court also recorded the finding that Appellant also cheated the P.W. No. 5 conveying to her that he is a qualified Medical Practitioner while persuading her to come alongwith him for marriage. The trial Court further held that even if P.W. No. 5 was above 18 years of age by the date of occurrence, but she being enticed away and at that time threat was given to her. therefore, the offence of kidnapping is proved. Thus, the trial Court convicted the Appellant for each of the aforesaid offences. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge imposed the sentence of R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 419, IPC. R.I. for one year, for the offence under Section 471, IPC, R.I. for five years, for the offence under Section 468, IPC and R.I. for six years, for the offence under Section 366. IPC. Trial Court also imposed a fine of Rs. 500/ - each for the conviction under Sections. 468 and 366. IPC and in default directed him to suffer R.I. for six months more on each count. The trial Court directed the sentences to run consecutively.