1993 INSC 0328
                                                    Dr. I.B. Gupta

                                                           Vs

                                                     State of U.P.

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 1984

                                     (P. N. Singh, K. Jayachandra Reddy JJ)

                                                      08.04.1993

                                                        ORDER

1. In respect of a murder that took place on September 11, 1978 one Shampoo alias Surendra Pratap
Singh was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of India Penal Code. He was
convicted by the Sessions Court. The prosecution also relied on a dying declaration recorded by Dr
I.B. Gupta and also by the Executive Magistrate. The convicted accused preferred an appeal to the
High Court. The High Court acquitted him. However, in the course of the judgment the High Court
commented on the conduct of Dr I.B. Gupta and observed that subsequently at the instance of the
Investigating Office the dying declaration of the deceased was interpolated as the dying declaration
recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the same was not in conformity with regard to the
participation of one Subhash. Thereafter the following observation is made by the High Court :

                  "The entire conduct of Dr I.B. Gupta in the circumstance of the case is highly
                  undeserving of a Medical Officer. He is not fit to be retained in Government service."

2. It may be mentioned here that the State had preferred on appeal to this Court against the order of
acquittal passed by the High Court and as that appeal was pending in this Court Dr. I.B. Gupta filed
the present appeal for expunging the remarks and special leave as granted. It appears that the State
appeal is abated since the respondent died. In this appeal it is submitted that Dr. I.B. Gupta, the
appellant, only acted in discharge of his official duty and it was a typographical mistake, namely,
that the timing was 1.45 a.m. instead of 1.45 p.m. when the dying declaration was recorded and
observation made is of serious nature affecting his career and his promotion also.

3. We have perused that part of the judgment of the High Court. The observation is made mainly
relying on the statement of the Investigating Officer who is said to have recorded the statement of
the doctor under Section 161 CrPC. Relying on the statement, the High Court reached the
conclusion that the doctor also connived to bring the dying declaration in conformity with the
prosecution version. This observation in any event overlooks the fact that the Investigating Officer
is also responsible and the observation is not strictly called for against the doctor who only treated
the injured and attended on him at that stage. The doctor has not disowned any of those
irregularities which by themselves could happen in discharge of his official duty on the basis of
those irregularities the observation that he is not fit to be retained in Government service is rather
damaging and far-fetched, without, any further inquiry as to the alleged conduct of the doctor. Any
such stricture which affects his career amounts to condemn him without being heard. In these
circumstances, this observation in the form of stricture is quashed. The appeal is allowed
accordingly.
</html