HC acquits 5 docs sentenced to jail in Amritsar kidney case

CHANDIGARH:Five years after six accused, including five doctors, were convicted and sentenced to five-year rigorous imprisonment by the Amritsar Additional Sessions Judge in a kidney transplant case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today acquitted them of the charges.

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, October 17

Five years after six accused, including five doctors, were convicted and sentenced to five-year rigorous imprisonment by the Amritsar Additional Sessions Judge in a kidney transplant case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today acquitted them of the charges.

The judgment by Justice Fateh Deep Singh came on petitions by Dr SPS Grover and the other accused. They had moved the High Court following their conviction on November 2, 2013, for cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and other offences under the IPC and the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994.

The case was registered on the basis of a complaint in 2002 by a minor. The trial court was told that the minor met one Baljit Singh, alias Vicky, in June 2002. He, in connivance with the doctors, forcibly removed the complainant’s kidney.

It was also alleged that the complainant was not paid any money. While he was still in pain, the complainant was allegedly left at his village and threatened with elimination of his entire family if he told anyone about the transplant.

The complainant died in 2004 after which his father appeared as a prosecution witness. He alleged the doctors had removed his son’s kidney and that he was kept in illegal confinement.

The accused’s lawyers submitted that the complainant never deposed as a prosecution witness. In the absence of his deposition, “the trial court erred” in placing reliance on the statements by the complainant to the investigating agency, as also upon his statement recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC. It was contended that an earlier statement by the witness could only be used for the purpose of contradicting or corroborating the testimony of the witness. Neither the FIR, nor any statement recorded under Section 164 would constitute a substantive piece of evidence.

The court was also told that extensive reliance was placed upon the testimony of the complainant’s father, which was in the nature of hearsay evidence as during the entire course of events and occurrence, he was never present with his son.