MURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, who have been arrayed as A-1 to A-9, have come forward with this appeal challenging the judgment dated 26.10.2005 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam, in S.C.No.25 of 2005 convicting and sentencing the appellants as follows : THE sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE factual scenario, as unfolded during the course of trial through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, is as follows :

(3.) LEARNED counsels appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the prosecution has not proved its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence. It is contended that there are contradictions in material particulars between the evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2. It is further submitted that A-2 and A-3 have also sustained injuries and the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused and as such the genesis and origin of the occurrence was suppressed by the prosecution. It is submitted that the occurrence is said to have been taken place on 07.12.2003 and the deceased was discharged from the hospital on 16.01.2004 and he died only on 22.02.2004 and as such the death is only due to improper treatment and medical complication. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.9 discloses that during the course of internal examination, he found a thread inside the head which clearly shows the negligence of the Doctor, who operated at the time of admission of the deceased, which resulted in complication, ultimately causing the death of the deceased. The learned counsel would submit that therefore, the accused could not be held liable for the death of the deceased.