IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Subas Chandra Dash – Appellant
Vs.
State of Orissa – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 758 of 2013
Decided On : 27-02-2017
Negligence and rashness and essential elements u/s.304-A, IPC - No prima facie materials for commission of an offence u/s.304 Part-II IPC - There are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner u/s.304 - A, IPC as due to his rash or negligent acts, death of the deceased was caused which falls short of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Directions issued.
2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Sec. 190 - "Cognizance" - It indicate the point when a Magistrate or a Court takes judicial notice of an offence - It is the condition precedent for the initiation of proceeding by the Magistrate - At the stage of taking cognizance adequancy of evidence for supporting the conviction shall not be seen by the Court - Magistrate should not enter into meticulous examination and shifting of evidence as a Trial Court - At this stage, Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the prosecution - If the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied that an offence has been committed, he has to pass necessary orders in consonance with the Section - At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing summons the allegations contained in the charge-sheet are assumed to be true unless the allegations are patiently absurd and inherently improbable.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Sahoo, J.
"We have not lost faith, but we have transferred it from God to medical profession."
- George Bernard Shaw
1. A common man treats the doctor as 'Dhanvantari'. He has tremendous amount of confidence on the doctor. The comforting and reassuring words of the doctor are very powerful and sometimes it creates miracle for the patients and strengthen them to fight from within. That is why the doctors should shoulder their responsibility with all care and caution, rise to the occasion, believe in hard work and discipline and behave with all sensibility not thinking only of their Everestian interest of amassing huge wealth burying larger collective interest of common men which would strengthen the patient-doctor relationship.
The petitioner Dr. Subas Chandra Dash has filed this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 23.02.2013 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir in G.R. Case No. 447 of 2013 arising out of Bolagir Town P.S. Case No. 170 of 2012 in taking cognizance of offence under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against him.
2. One Susanta Kumar Thakur filed a complaint petition before the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir on 11.05.2012 against the petitioner and another Dr. Narayan Thanapati, on the basis of which I.C.C. Case No. 34 of 2012 was registered.
The prosecution case as per the complaint petition is that the complainant admitted his wife Rajeswari Thakur (hereafter 'the deceased') for delivery in Women's Care Nursing Home, Manoharpur on 24.03.2012 at about 8.00 a.m. which belonged to the petitioner who after check up of the deceased told that she was in normal condition. The petitioner placed one tablet inside the vagina of the deceased as a result of which there was heavy vaginal watery discharge and she also felt severe pain. After some time, the petitioner gave one saline and injection and told that the deceased would be alright within fifteen minutes. Then the petitioner used hand gloves and though forceps tried to pull out the baby from the womb of the deceased, as a result of which there was profuse bleeding due to rupture of uterus. After sometime, the petitioner referred the deceased in a serious condition to District Headquarters Hospital, Bolangir by arranging one vehicle. It is the further case of the complainant that the health condition of the deceased deteriorated when she was admitted in the District Headquarters Hospital, Bolangir. The referral slip issued by the petitioner was produced by the complainant before Dr. Narayan Thanapati who was the gynaecologist in the said hospital. It is further stated that even at the Government Hospital, the deceased was not treated properly by Dr. Thanapati till 10.00 p.m. and for the negligent treatment of the petitioner and Dr. Thanapati, the deceased as well as the baby in the unborn condition died. Dr. Thanapati asked the complainant to take the dead body of the deceased immediately from the hospital. The mental condition of the complainant was not good for which he took the dead body of his wife from the hospital to Sundargarh and with the help of the in-laws' family members of the complainant, the dead body was cremated.
3. The matter was reported in Town Police Station, Bolangir on 27.03.2012 but no action was taken for which the complaint petition was filed. The learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir sent the complaint petition to the Inspector in Charge, Town Police Station, Bolangir under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to treat it as F.I.R. and to investigate the case. Accordingly, Bolangir Town P.S. Case No. 170 of 2012 was registered on 22.06.2012 under sections 304 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and Dr. Narayan Tahanapati.
During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the complainant, seized the original treatment papers of the deceased in the Nursing Home of the petitioner on different dates so also the sonography test report on the production by the complainant. T
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.