RGUHS 2006 PG Entrance Test Paper Leak Case: HC denies to quash CBI proceedings against doctor

The case was presented before Justice M Nagaprasanna's bench in response to a petition challenging the decision of the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru. The special court had previously rejected the petitioner's request to be removed from the list of accused.

The Issue:

In February 2006, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) planned to conduct an entrance examination for postgraduate degrees in medicine. The examination was carried out, and the results were subsequently announced. However, certain candidates who did not pass the entrance test alleged malpractice during the examination. They claimed that there had been a leak of question papers, benefiting some candidates who had achieved remarkably high scores.

In response to this, the Government of Karnataka formed an Inquiry Committee to investigate these allegations, as the issue had garnered significant media attention. The committee, comprising members of the Health and Family Welfare Department, submitted its report, which concluded that irregularities had occurred during the entrance examination. The required confidentiality had been breached, and malpractice had indeed taken place.

Following the submission of this report, the Government of Karnataka decided to escalate the matter by entrusting the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI initiated an inquiry and identified 20 individuals as accused in the case.

During their investigation, the CBI discovered that accused No.1, the former vice-chancellor of the University, and accused No.2, the former Registrar of the University, along with the former Assistant Registrar of the University, conspired with other individuals who were candidates in the entrance examination. As part of this criminal conspiracy, question papers for the entrance examination were illicitly shared with certain individuals who were named as accused in the First Information Report (FIR).

Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed against the suspects, with the petitioner being identified as accused 8 in the case. She was charged under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in addition to Sections 409, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

After the chargesheet was submitted, the petitioner approached the special court in Karnataka, requesting the registration of her postgraduate degree in general medicine, which had been withheld due to a previous police chargesheet against her. The court responded to this request by issuing specific directives. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., seeking her removal from the list of accused individuals. However, this application was denied by the special court in a ruling dated January 27, 2020, thereby compelling her to proceed to trial.

Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the High Court, challenging the rejection of her discharge application.

The Arguments:

During the high court proceedings, the petitioner's counsel, Sri Mahesh S contended that several individuals, including accused Nos. 3 to 20, had participated in the Post Graduate Entrance Test 2006 (referred to as 'PGET'), and all of them had achieved successful results, which raised suspicions of malpractice. It was argued that one of the factors presented to establish the commission of the offense was that among the 16 candidates charged as accused, some had previously obtained low marks but suddenly showed significant improvement, securing high ranks in the PGET. However, the counsel asserted that this argument did not apply to the petitioner since she had consistently been a high-achieving student in postgraduate exams and other academic endeavors.

The prosecution had relied on polygraph examinations and brain mapping analyses, which had yielded positive results for several candidates, including the petitioner. This, the counsel argued, was the primary reason for the court's rejection of the petitioner's application for discharge. It was further emphasized that the mere results of the polygraph test or the narcotic analysis could not conclusively implicate the petitioner as an accused unless there was corroborative evidence appended to the charge sheet.

The counsel also pointed out that the prosecution was primarily relying on statements provided under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by two individuals who had turned approvers. The petitioner's argument was that if the prosecution were allowed to proceed, the chances of her conviction were minimal. Therefore, the petitioner should be discharged from the list of accused individuals.

On the other hand, the counsel representing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) aimed to counter the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel. They asserted that any available evidence would be presented against the petitioner during the trial. The rejection of the discharge application was considered justified, as the evaluation of material at the discharge stage by the concerned court was exceedingly restricted.

The CBI's counsel advocated for the dismissal of the petition, emphasizing that it is the petitioner's responsibility to establish her innocence in a full-fledged trial. Furthermore, given that the case has been ongoing for 17 years, the counsel suggested that this court could instruct the concerned court to expedite the trial proceedings, enabling the case to move forward swiftly.

High Court's Observations:

After careful consideration of the arguments put forth by the respective counsel and a thorough review of the available evidence, the Karnataka High Court examined the statements of the petitioner, and the polygraph and brain mapping tests she underwent.

The Polygraph examination conducted in May 2008 asked questions which included the relevant (crime-related) issues. The results of the polygraph test indicated that the doctor provided deceptive responses. The findings suggested that she was not truthful in her statements and had knowledge of the crime under investigation. In simpler terms, the polygraph test strongly suggested that the doctor was being deceitful in her responses and had knowledge of the crime in question. The test outcome did not work in her favor.

The court further stated that the information processing and the generation of ERP responses pointed to the petitioner's awareness of the activities related to the primary encoding of the targeted words throughout the alleged episode of the crime. It observed;

"The findings of brain mapping insofar as few of the members are concerned are that the information processing and generation of ERP responses are indicative of the possession of knowledge of the activities and associated with the targeted words of primary encoding which is indicative of the fact that the petitioner was aware of what was happening in the entire alleged episode of crime."

The High Court emphasized that brain mapping or polygraph tests, while significant, are not conclusive evidence for the acquittal or conviction of any accused. Such tests must be supported by corroborative evidence. In this case, the court found that, considering the statements of certain witnesses and the available documents, it could not conclude that the petitioner was entitled to be removed from the list of accused. While the polygraph test results were considered, the primary evidence was based on documents and statements. As a result, these statements would need to be tested in a trial, with the onus on the petitioner to establish her innocence. It observed;

"What would unmistakably emerge from the aforesaid test is the knowledge of the episode of crime qua the petitioner and her participation. It is trite law that brain mapping or polygraph test is not conclusive piece of evidence to quash, acquit or convict any accused. There should be corroborative material. The corroborative material is found in the charge sheet so filed by the CBI on the basis of the statements tendered by CW-56 one Anil Kumar. The statements of CW-56 reveal that the petitioner was picked up by him and brought to U.D. Residency at the instance of CW-55 and accused No.2. Ex.D75 is the mahazar in respect of recovery of the evidence from CW-56. CW-56 identifies the photo of the petitioner for picking her up and giving the question paper to her. Those were recovered at the time of mahazar from CW-56. With the statements of CWs-55, 56 and the documents it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for a discharge from the array of accused. Polygraph test may be the foundation. But, the evidence is on the basis of documents and statements as well. Therefore, these statements will have to be put to test in a trial in which it is for the petitioner to come out clean."

The court referred to the case of Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, highlighting that the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is not appropriate when charges have already been filed after a comprehensive investigation. It said;

"The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that chances of conviction being very bleak, the proceedings should be quashed is unacceptable, as the entire proceedings are shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact. If the submission of the learned counsel is accepted and proceedings are closed, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH."

Given these factors, the petition was subsequently rejected by the bench. The court held;

"Finding no merit in the petition and no error much less an error apparent warranting interference with the order passed by the concerned Court on 27-01-2020, the petition stands rejected. Consequently, interim order operating in this case shall stand dissolved."

To view the original order, click on the link below: