IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.323 of 2006 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.c.-II, Rohtas atSasaram, in Sessions Case No. 202 of 2004) ======================================== Dr.Tajmul Ansari, Son of Id Mohammad Ansari, resident of village – Wasitpur, Mahavir Sthan, P.S. Rohtas, Distt. Rohtas. .... .... Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent ======================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Syed Alamdar Hussain, Adv. Mr. Syed Asgher Najmi, Adv. Ms. Minu Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, A.P.P. P R E S E N T HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellant has been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years by a Judgment dated 13/17.4.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Rohtas, at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 2004. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.1.2004 while the daughter of the Informant aged about four years was playing outside the house, she was taken away by appellant Chalaua Oraon and thereafter left at her door with injury on her private parts. The Informant took the child to the present Appellant where she was given first aid. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 have been declared hostile. PW-8 is the Doctor who examined the injured child and found the wound having been stitched earlier by way of treatment. PW-4 is a sole witness on whose evidence, the prosecution case was filed and she merely stated that the victim had been taken to the Clinic where her wound was stitched. There is no evidence that the medical aid was for the purpose of screening any offence. It was only natural for the Appellant, who was a Doctor to have given medical aid when the victim was brought to him. 4. On going through the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, I find complete paucity of any material against the petitioner to sustain the conviction of the Appellant under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Considering the same, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Rohtas at Sasaram is hereby set aside. 6. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, 24th June, 2011 NAFR/S.ALI