JANAKI GOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. This petition is by PW 17 in Sessions Case No.10 of 1124 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Parur to expunge the remarks about her in paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Sessions Judge while disposing of the case. PW 17 was the lady Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital at Moovattupuzha in Medom 1123. One Sankaran Pappu, about whose death the said case came up for trial, had been sent to the hospital at Moovattupuzha with a serious injury on the head, by PW 16 the Medical Officer at Thodupuzha Dispensary for more efficient treatment as the facilities in Thodupuzha were limited. The patient reached Moovattupuzha at 10 A.M. on 26.9.1123. The senior Medical Officer in charge was on leave. It was suspected that this Pappu had sustained serious injury to the brain, and PW 17 who was the next senior in charge of the Hospital thought it proper to send him on to Kottayam for treatment after an X-ray examination of the injured parts. It was also thought necessary to have an extensive operation for which the convenience in Moovattupuzha was limited. She arranged for the ambulance van being brought from Kottayam to take the patient. It was delayed, and so she allowed the injured to be taken to Kottayam in the motor vehicle in which he was taken to Moovattupuzha. This conduct of PW 16 and 17 was condemned by the Judge in paragraph 26 of the judgment and that portion is extracted below:

(2.) I studied the evidence of P.Ww. 16 and 17, and also of PW 18 the Assistant Surgeon who attended on Pappu in Kottayam. Though Pappu sustained the injury at 4 P.M. on 25.9.1123, he died in the District Hospital at Kottayam only on 12.10.1123. PW 16 saw him first at 11.30 P.M. on 25.9.1123 when he was given first aid. The injury was bandaged to stop bleeding and all what he could do under the limited convenience was done. Since PW 17 bona fide thought that effective treatment could be had only after an X-ray examination, he was sent to the nearest hospital where there was this convenience. There was absolutely nothing in the evidence of P.Ww. 16 and 17 to show that they are callous or indifferent. The remarks made by the Judge were quite unwarranted and unjust particularly when these witnesses had no opportunity to defend themselves.

(3.) The Judge instead of convicting the accused under S. 301 T.P.C. for murder, convicted him only under S. 326 T.P.C. The State preferred an appeal against this before this court in Crl. Appeal 197 of 1124 (T). The appeal was allowed and the conviction was changed to one under S. 301 T.P.C. so far as Pappu's death was concerned. The accused was also given a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life for the same.