VEENA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal revisions have been preferred against the orders dated 27.5.2010 and 24.10.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in ST. No. 1229 of 2008 State of U.P. v. Dr. Veena Agrawal. By order dated 24.10.2009, learned trial Court discharged the. revisionist for the offence punishable under Sections 269, 270, 337, 338 Indian Penal Code, but rejecting the prayer for discharge, directed framing of the charge under Section 304 Indian Penal Code. The said order has been challenged in criminal revision No. 4952 of 2009. In pursuance of order dated 24.10.2009, learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 304 Indian Penal Code against the revisionist on 27.5.2010 and the said order is under challenge in criminal revision No. 2393 of 2010.

(2.) Since both the revisions arise out of same crime number and relate to the same controversy, they are being disposed of together.

(3.) The facts are that on 15.1.2005, the complainant Ram Gopal Sharma-opposite party No. 2 lodged F.I.R. at P.S. Civil Lines, Muzaffar Nagar, which was registered at crime No. 12 of 2005 under Sections 269, 270, 273, 326, 308 Indian Penal Code, State v. Dr. Girish Kumar and Ors. alleging therein that his son Vishal Sharma was born on 15.8.1996, he remained continuously ill. On 10.7.2004, he was treated by Dr. Girish Kumar at 'Child Care Centre' for pneumonia. Dr. Girish Kumar transfused blood brought from the Blood Bank of Dr. Veena Agrawal. Subsequently, when no improvement was noticed in the condition of the child Vishal Sharma, aged about 8 years, he was referred to Chandigarh, where he was admitted at C.B.D. Hospital and was found to be HIV+. It was alleged that Dr. Veena Agrawal supplied contaminated blood, which was transfused by Dr. Girish Kumar. Earlier charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 269, 270, 273, 337, 326, 308 Indian Penal Code, but subsequently after death of the child, a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 304 Indian Penal Code was also filed. On the case being committed to the Court of Sessions, a prayer for discharge was made on behalf of the revisionist. The revisionist was discharged under other Sections, but learned trial Court framed charge under Section 304 Indian Penal Code.