Dharmendra & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
Background
The appellants were running a clinic in Nagpur and were prosecuted for practising medicine without holding any valid degree, diploma, or government certification, as required under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. A decoy witness arranged by the police claimed she was treated and bandaged for a fee at the clinic, and the trial court convicted the appellants, sentencing them to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine; the conviction was upheld by the appellate court and the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench).
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that the key prosecution witness, the decoy/pointer sent by police, had admitted in cross-examination that she had no injury at all, making it implausible that any genuine treatment or bandaging occurred, and the prescription slip relied upon was never properly proved. Other witnesses were shown to be connected to a landlord with whom the appellants had an independent tenancy/eviction dispute, raising a credible possibility that the case was motivated by that dispute. Concluding that the guilt of the appellants had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the findings of the courts below ran contrary to the evidence on record, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence and allowed the appeal, discharging the bail bonds.
Lesson Learnt
A criminal conviction cannot stand on the testimony of a decoy witness whose own account is internally inconsistent (here, admitting to no actual injury) or on documents that were never properly proved: courts of appeal will intervene where the evidentiary findings of lower courts run contrary to the record.