R.N. PARIDHA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, C.G., in Sessions Trial No.478/2007, in which the prayer made by the applicant for issuance of direction of the Court for additional investigation was rejected.

(2.) The facts of the case are these that the complainant- Rakesh Bansal has lodged F.I.R. against the applicant stating that his pregnant wife was visiting the applicant for regular check-up in the year 2006. On 27.09.2006, the pregnant wife of the complainant was in distress because of which she was admitted in the nursing home of the applicant on 28.09.2006. The complainant was not briefed about the situation by the applicant. The wife of the complainant was carrying twins, one of the children was delivered dead and the other died due to infections later on. The complainant has alleged that the applicant has committed gross negligence in examining and providing medical treatment to his wife. The death of the child in womb was suppressed and this fact also was suppressed, that because of the situation, there was likelihood that other child may also die. On this basis, an F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant for prosecution and offences under Section 316, 304, 338, 201 of I.P.C.

(3.) The applicant filed an application under Section 173(8) read with Section 91 of Cr.P.C. praying for fresh investigation of the case, on the ground that there are two medical reports which are contradictory to each other and there was necessity to investigate the case in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2005 AIR (SCW) 3685. The learned trial Court has by the impugned order holding that a similar application was filed before the Court of committal Magistrate which was rejected on 22.12.2007, which was suppressed and also holding that the order passed by the committal Magistrate was revisable against which no revision has been presented by the applicant and for these reasons his application has been rejected.