DOCTOR ARUN DEWANGAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against an order dated 21-12-2005 passed by Smt. Rajni Dubey, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 100/2005 whereby charge under Section 304, Part-II of the I.P.C. was framed against the applicant.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as disclosed by the first information report lodged by Dhal Singh Chandel on 21 -4-2005 at P. S. Chikhli, District Rajnandgaon are as follows : Dhal Singh Chandel runs a medical stores in Chikhli. His wife Smt. Madhu alias Preeti Chandel had undergone a Caesarian operation about 5 years prior to the incident and was blessed with a daughter. On 28-3-2005 Smt. Madhu Chandel was having full term pregnancy again and was undergoing treatment of Gynaecologist Dr. Smt. Asha Thomas of Christian Fellowship Hospital. At about 9 a.m. on 28th March, 2005 Smt. Madhu Chandel started having labour pains. Dhal Singh Chandel was about to take his wife to the Christian Fellowship Hospital for delivery. At that time, the applicant-accused Dr. Arun Dewangan, who runs a charitable hospital nearby came to the house of Dhal Singh Chandel and told him not to go to the hospital as he would very comfortably get the delivery of Smt. Madhu done at home itself. Dhal Singh knew Dr. Dewangan since long and had great respect for him. The applicant-accused was also on visiting terms to his house. Dhal Singh requested that since the first delivery was by Caesarian, he did not want to take any risk and wanted to take his wife to the hospital. However, the applicant-accused with great confidence said that Smt. Madhu was not in a condition to be shifted to the hospital and he would set things right in 10 minutes. On this, Dhal Singh Chandel agreed to the offer of the applicant-accused to get the delivery of his wife done at home.

(3.) ON the basis of above facts, the learned trial Judge framed charge under Section 304, Part II of the I.P.C. against the accused-applicant. Shri Koshtra, learned Counsel for the applicant, has placed reliance on Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr. reported in : 2004CriLJ3870 and argued that at the most the facts revealed by the prosecution could prima facie constitute an offence under Section 304(a) of the I.P.C. but in no case under Section 304, Part II of the I.P.C. He also placed reliance on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab reported in 2005 AIR SCW 3685 : 2005 Cri LJ 3710 to support his arguments that at the most it was a case of medical negligence and could in no case constitute culpable homicidal not amounting to murder. ON the other hand, Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposed this revision, though formally.