STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SANJEEV KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant-State of Haryana through District Appropriate Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon, Sirsa has filed this application under Sec. 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondent Sanjeev Kaushal, challenging the judgment dtd. 16/11/2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, whereby accused-respondent was acquitted. It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted. As per the record, complainant State through District Appropriate Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon, Sirsa filed a complaint against accused Dr.Sanjeev Kaushal and M/s Diagnostic Centre, under Pre-Natal Diagnostic Technique (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 and Rules 1996. The brief averments of the complaint as noted down in the judgment passed by learned CJM, Sirsa, are as under:-

(2.) The complainant examined as many as 11 witnesses. The accused were charge-sheeted under Sec. 25 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. At the close of complainant evidence, the accused Sanjeev Kaushal was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. He was confronted with the evidence of the complainant and he denied all the incriminating evidence against him and pleaded his false implication. Learned CJM, Sirsa, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused-respondents vide impugned judgment dtd. 7/5/2014. Aggrieved from the above-said judgment, present appeal along with application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed. Notice of the application was issued. Learned counsel for the respondent appeared and contested the application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that the main allegation, in the present case, as per prosecution version is that form F was not filled as per the provisions of the Act. Second allegation is that patients were not found on the address given in form F and there were no entries in the register regarding pregnant women etc. The perusal of the evidence on record shows that not even a single pregnant woman has come to the witness box to show that foetus determination test has been conducted by the accused. There is only news channel report on television and report in the newspaper but there is no direct evidence on the record to show that accused has conducted sex determination test on any pregnant woman. Learned trial Court has correctly held that register entries are to be maintained in the cases where pregnancy test has taken place. As regarding the fact that in form F, in the column of referral doctor, the name of the doctor is not mentioned, learned trial Court has gone through the Rules, where it is written that a doctor can himself be a self referral doctor. Furthermore, the Court has discussed that in form F, some cannot be held as blank. Rather, on these columns, it is written as 'NA' (not applicable).

(3.) Learned trial court has discussed the statements of the doctors in detail, who have verified and deposed that persons named in form F, on whom ultrasound test has been conducted, were not found but these doctors/witnesses have admitted in their cross-examinations that they were not knowing any person in the village and they have not taken voter list, ration card etc. nor they have taken anything in writing from the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the Court held that reasonable doubt exists and complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.